Saying No to Surveillance Tech Recruiters

I often think about what “value” there is in technology: not shareholder value, but the value that a company’s products and services provide to their customers, and to the broader world. In an attempt to discourage recruiters at certain companies, I updated my LinkedIn profile a few years ago to say, “no suburbs, no ad tech, and no algorithmic trading, please.” Without digressing into my thoughts on suburbia, I don’t think that advertising or high-speed trading have been value-neutral or value-positive for the world. After getting a few pings from companies in the “public safety” space — that is, companies that primarily sell to law enforcement agencies — I’m now saying no to surveillance tech, too.

Surveillance tech, when used by trusted, well-regulated organizations in responsible ways, can indeed save lives, as recruiters for these companies like to say. It would be great if police officers wore body cameras, so that abusive behavior gets documented and corrected. First responders would benefit from having high-quality camera drones to get better views of dangerous situations. Unfortunately, we are not in a moment where law enforcement agencies, particularly at the federal level, are reliably acting in responsible or accountable ways; to the contrary, leaders have assured rank-and-file members that they can do whatever they feel is necessary, without consequences to themselves. The trust I had put in these agencies, that in some cases was being rebuilt over decades, is at a new low right now, as law-abiding observers are arrested, attacked, harassed, and otherwise victimized by officers that I’d been told are ensuring “public safety.” Working on surveillance technology, right now, exposes members of marginalized groups in the U.S. to even more danger than they’re already in, whether they’re legally entitled to be in the country or not.

Optimism about tech’s impact on the world doesn’t always match reality. Fifteen years ago, during the Arab Spring, revolutionary groups used social media to coordinate uprisings against authoritarian governments that were indifferent to everyday citizens’ needs. While many changes in policies and leadership resulted from protests in that year, in many cases, countries with popular uprisings in 2011 are still in bad shape in 2026. It’s been shown repeatedly that digital media are more effective at stifling dissent than they are at enabling it. When I started using the Internet 35 years ago, basic services like e-mail and the web were highly federated, but today, even the most tech-savvy Americans typically rely on the same small set of giant companies for all of their communication needs, and bristle at the idea of, for example, moving their private messages away from services that feed into ad tech algorithms. The same is true in most countries. Homogeneity in tech makes it much easier for people to communicate among themselves. When tech executives so readily capitulate to authoritarian demands, surveillance becomes a standard feature of key services provided by the private sector.

I speak from a position of privilege when I exercise my choice to opt out of yet another industry that employs thousands of talented techies, and whose companies fund useful, non-creepy projects with some of the revenue they make from surveillance tech. I don’t believe that an employee at a surveillance tech firm can effect major positive change from the inside; that’s optimistic, but ultimately, conscientious employees will reach a point where they have to quit or choose to disregard the effects their company has on the world, so that they continue to get an income to support their own personal needs. I also admit to hypocrisy about these companies; I’ve worked on ad tech and on tools that can be used in surveillance tech, including reportedly by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and I have indirect investments in surveillance tech companies, through mutual funds in which I own shares.

I believe that much of the tech industry’s capitulation to the current presidency is out of fear, rather than out of enthusiasm. Helping to fund a new White House ballroom, supporting the first lady’s documentary about herself, and attending inaugural balls are all ways to try to stay in our authoritarian president’s good graces, at least in theory. Even in this supposed age of government efficiency, government contracts are critical to many companies’ revenue and long-term success.

For a deeper analysis about surveillance tech, with a broader definition than what I’ve used in this post, I recommend Shoshana Zuboff’s very good book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Written in 2019, it was an accurate look at the inequities of the tech world at that point in time. I hope that Prof. Zuboff, or someone she endorses, is working on a follow-up book covering the troubling governmental abuses that I expect to continue for a few more years, at least.