Should owning a phone and a car and using the internet mean organizations know everything about us? The current debate over the expansion of Flock cameras, a form of automated license plate readers, across the U.S. triggers this broader question as governments and private enterprises seek to expand their surveillance power.

Historically, legal protections have not kept up with new technologies that invade our privacy. This is as true today as it was in 1890 when Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis observed in their Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy” that mass newspaper printing and photography were threatening privacy in new and unforeseen ways. The problems today are similar, but on a larger scale.

Flock camera expansion is the surveillance technology currently under debate, but certainly more surveillance technologies will develop. Flock cameras can benefit the public by detecting car thefts and other serious crimes, but some might use the cameras to abuse privacy. Proponents could argue cameras don’t violate privacy because they photograph public spaces. However, creating a searchable database of the people’s travel patterns across jurisdictions over extended periods of time seems more invasive than someone simply taking an isolated picture on a public street.

After all, when travel patterns are combined with personal data from other sources, aggregators can create a very detailed record of someone’s personal life, including current and past locations, who the person has spent time with, any commercial or political activities, out-of-state abortions and even marijuana purchases. Could a government actor use surveillance technology to detect a person’s political activities and then punish that person? Could it be used to punish a person for getting an out-of-state abortion? In today’s political climate, it seems a possibility.

I see the consequences of data aggregation when I regularly receive unsolicited text messages from businesses that might identify my home address or neighborhood and offer to provide me with landscaping or other services. The businesses presumably purchased my information from data brokers that electronically scraped public records and other online information to develop a profile on me. Should the government and private sector be entitled to aggregate all of this information on us for surveillance capitalism or warrantless criminal surveillance? This modern electronic espionage reminds me of the principle Warren and Brandeis famously described in 1890 as the “right to be let alone.”

This country was founded with privacy in mind. The Fourth Amendment restricts government searches of homes and personal effects without a reason and use of long-term tracking devices without a warrant. Our data — for example, emails and location history — is essentially modern diaries holding our private thoughts, friendships and travels. Tort laws often restrict private parties from physically spying on us but don’t seem to cover modern electronic surveillance. And another twist: Law enforcement can potentially bypass warrant requirements by simply purchasing information from the private sector.

How can the U.S. move forward with privacy protection in the face of ever-expanding technology, especially when legislation can’t keep up with the changes? The country must explore whether a constitutional amendment could effectively prohibit information privacy abuse by the government, the private sector or the two working together. Essentially, this would empower courts to stop clear privacy abuses as they arise rather than waiting for effective legislation that may never happen. This seems like a particularly intriguing tool given the law can’t keep up with rapidly developing technology.

Big Tech and government are addicted to collecting massive amounts of personal data. Neither can be trusted with it, and neither will voluntarily stop. Congress has failed to enact a broad consumer privacy law for more than 25 years. Something must be done. Our legal system is failing us.

Who fights for the privacy of an average citizen? Arguably no one. In fact, state privacy laws are often written by Big Tech lobbyists to placate the population with a false assurance of privacy. The government will continually seek expansion of invasive surveillance for enforcement or other purposes, and likewise, the private sector will do so for profit.

Some folks understandably have thrown up their hands, saying privacy is dead and will never come back. This defeatist viewpoint is certainly understandable, but dreamers like me wonder if we could have a system where it’s difficult for government or the private sector to obtain aggregated data to know everything about us. (Perhaps easy warrantless aggregation might be limited to national security purposes rather than domestic law-enforcement or commercial motives?)

A constitutional amendment is incredibly difficult to enact. But, maybe in the face of expanding artificial intelligence-supported surveillance, it’s time for society to seriously consider it?

____

Anthony Volini is a professor of technology and intellectual property law at the DePaul University College of Law, director of DePaul’s Office of Technology Transfer, Commercialization & Social Impact and a registered patent attorney. The views expressed are his own.

___

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.