Search Documents and Resources

    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
Project On Government Oversight
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate
  • Afghanistan
  • More Topics
  • About
  • Mission & History
  • Board & Staff
  • Financials
  • Take Action
  • For Federal Employees
  • COVID-19: Tips
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Donate
Project On Government Oversight
    • Mission and Vision
    • Board & Staff
    • Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Donor Privacy Policy
    • Explore our work
    • Center for Defense Information
    • The Constitution Project
    • Congressional Oversight Initiative
    • Policy Letters
    • Reports
    • Testimony
    • For Oversight Staff
    • Whistleblower Resources
    • Report Corruption
  • Take Action
  • Sign Up
  • Donate

Warrantless Surveillance

August 12, 2022

(Illustration: Renzo Velez / POGO)

The Problem

In the United States, we are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct a search or seizure. But as 21st century surveillance technology evolves, we need to update laws and policies to make sure they are keeping pace with today’s technology and protecting our constitutional rights.

In recent years, there have been countless instances in which law enforcement officials circumvented warrant requirements by buying cell phone data from private companies. These companies offer tools and techniques such as cell-site simulators (coined “stingrays”) and cell tower dumps to snag data on cell phones over a radius of several blocks, taking information from thousands of people at once without their knowledge or consent. Law enforcement officials can access this sensitive data without a warrant or a fair attempt to gather information through less intrusive investigative methods. Moreover, law enforcement officials are not required to redact any private information unrelated to their investigations or their target.

Law enforcement units around the country also use face recognition technology to attempt to identify suspects far more often than the public thinks. Since the technology is so new, there are no guidelines in place about its use — there have even been cases where officers use face recognition technology without the knowledge of their department. What’s more, the companies that sell this technology (like Clearview AI) greatly exaggerate its accuracy, characterizing the software as a nearly flawless super-tool. In reality, face recognition often misidentifies innocent people, leading to improper arrests and even jail time. Some face recognition software is more likely to misidentify women and people of color. There is no easy solution to this problem — if face recognition software does get more accurate, it will increasingly violate Americans’ privacy. Do we want the government to be able to track us wherever we go, catalog everyone we interact with, and listen in on every sensitive activity we engage in?

The Solution

In order to protect our constitutional rights, we need to bring our laws and policies up to speed on 21st century surveillance technology. We need to

  • Explicitly ban law enforcement from buying cell phone data from private companies as a way to circumvent the Fourth Amendment;
  • Establish a “super-warrant” requirement for stingrays that requires higher levels of proof and necessity when government officials want to track a single suspect’s cell phone data; and
  • Establish safeguards on the use of facial recognition that stop harmful misidentifications and prevent pervasive surveillance and abuse.

Related Stories

  • Constitutional Principles

    How to Protect Yourself from Surveillance While Seeking Reproductive Health Care

  • Constitutional Principles

    Privacy After Carpenter: We Need Warrants for Real-Time Tracking and “Electronic Exhaustion”

  • Constitutional Principles

    How to Respond to Risk of Surveillance While Protesting

  • Constitutional Principles

    Next Steps After Stopping IRS Face Recognition

Related Policy Resources

  • Constitutional Principles

    Key Facts About Face Recognition for Policymaking

  • Constitutional Principles

    Issue Brief: The Cell-Site Simulator Warrant Act

  • Constitutional Principles

    POGO Proposes Strong Limits on Face Recognition to White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

  • Constitutional Principles

    POGO Calls on Justice Department to Enact Safeguards Against Surveillance

Site Footer

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • Press Center
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Briefing
  • Newsletters
  • Publications
  • Report Corruption
Better Business Bureau Accredited Charity CharityWatch Top Rated Charity Great Nonprofits 2021 Top-Rated Charity Navigator Four-Star Charity

©2023 POGO | Privacy Policy

Project On Government Oversight logo

Project On Government Oversight

Oversight in your inbox.