By Malcolm Lee Kitchen III | Margin Of The Law
Surveillance capitalism represents a new form of capitalism that converts human behavior into data for tracking, analysis, and monetization. Yet this framing obscures the deeper architecture that sustains it. More than a business model, surveillance capitalism constitutes a geopolitical system with institutional scaffolding; grounded in regulation (or its absence), legitimized by economic theory, promoted by trade rules, and protected by powerful states. Its endurance depends not only on market incentives but on a distributed architecture of norms, institutions, actors, and governance failures. At its core, surveillance capitalism is an extractive political economy built on the systematic capture and monetization of human experience. As Shoshana Zuboff (2022a) argues, this system enacts an “epistemic coup,” through which corporations assert ownership over behavioral data, eroding privacy, self-knowledge, and democratic legitimacy. This outcome is the product of deliberate political choices, neoliberal ideologies, and the retreat of the American Republic.-MK3
The Core Question
Mass surveillance sits at the center of a growing debate about individual agency, freedom, and self-governance. The question is not simply whether data is being collected. It is who collects it, under what rules, and with what consequences for the people being watched.
Over the past two decades, a specific critique has taken shape under the label “surveillance capitalism.” The argument, developed most thoroughly by Shoshana Zuboff, is that major technology companies, starting with Google and followed by Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, have built a new economic model around the commodification of human behavior. These companies collect micro-level data on users, process it using artificial intelligence and machine learning, and sell it to third parties who use it to predict and modify behavior. According to critics, this process strips individuals of dignity, undermines freedom, and threatens the functioning of self-governance in a Constitutional Republic.
This framing captures something real. But it also leaves something important out.
Data collection is not unique to private technology companies. Governments collect data too, and they have been doing so for far longer. The welfare consequences of data collection, whether it harms or benefits the people being surveilled, depend not on the act of collection itself but on the institutional environment in which that collection takes place. Private markets and government institutions operate under fundamentally different incentive structures and knowledge conditions. Those differences matter enormously when evaluating what surveillance means for individual freedom.
This analysis applies comparative institutional analysis to examine those differences. It considers surveillance capitalism in the context of private markets, where competitive pressures, feedback mechanisms, and legal constraints shape how data is collected and used. It then examines the surveillance state, distinguishing between its potentially protective functions and its demonstrably predatory ones. The goal is a clearer picture of how data collection actually affects individual agency, freedom, and self-governance, grounded in institutional reality rather than technological anxiety.
The analysis focuses on the United States. The major companies associated with surveillance capitalism are American. And the United States, as a Constitutional Republic with explicit commitments to individual rights and limited government, provides an instructive case for examining how surveillance operates when formal constraints exist and what happens when those constraints fail.
What Surveillance Capitalism Actually Is
Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism along three dimensions. The first is the collection of personal data generated as a by-product of interacting with digital devices and platforms, including cell phones, search engines, and social media. The second is the use of computational tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, to predict human behavior based on that data. The third is behavioral modification, where third-party entities purchase predictions derived from the first two dimensions and use them to alter how people act in ways those people are not aware of.
In this framework, surveillance capitalism is a negative-sum relationship. For-profit firms extract what Zuboff calls a “behavioral surplus,” meaning data collected beyond what is needed to improve the service being offered to the user directly. That surplus is processed, packaged, and sold. The buyers use it to influence behavior. The people whose behavior is being influenced have no meaningful knowledge that this is happening.
The examples Zuboff offers are instructive. In 2012, Facebook ran an experiment adding features to users’ news feeds, including an “I Voted” button, the locations of voting booths, and information about how many other users had voted. Users who received this content were measurably more likely to vote than the control group. Playing the augmented reality mobile game Pokemon Go required users to move through physical space searching for digital objects. Private retailers partnered with the game’s developers to position those objects near their locations, directing foot traffic to specific commercial spaces.
Zuboff reads both examples as evidence of mass behavioral control exercised by private corporations with neither the knowledge nor the consent of the people being influenced. From this, she concludes that surveillance capitalism is not simply a business model but a political threat. She describes it as a “market-driven coup from above,” a form of tyranny that does not require force because it operates through manipulation of attention and behavior at scale.
This is a strong claim. And like many strong claims, it contains real concerns wrapped around analytical problems that need to be separated out.
Earlier Critiques: The Same Argument in Different Clothes
The concerns embedded in the surveillance capitalism critique are not new. They connect directly to earlier debates about markets, advertising, and consumer manipulation that stretch back over a century.
Thorstein Veblen offered one of the earliest critiques of advertising. In his account, businesses used advertising to shift consumer perception from the use value of goods to their symbolic value, generating social waste while benefiting firms at the expense of consumers. Advertising, Veblen argued, also fostered monopoly power by locking in consumer habits in ways that were difficult to reverse. Once an advertiser succeeded in shaping a person’s habits of thought, reversing that conviction required considerable effort.
John Kenneth Galbraith extended this critique with his concept of the “dependence effect.” His argument was that production increases create consumer wants, with advertising playing a central role in that creation. Producers actively manufacture desires for the goods and services they sell. If wants are artificially created by advertisers rather than authentically held by consumers, then increasing production to satisfy those wants does not actually increase welfare. Consumer sovereignty, in this view, is an illusion maintained by the advertising apparatus.
Today’s critique of surveillance capitalism follows the same structure. Technology firms collect data on past and current consumer decisions, including search histories, social media activity, location data, and smartphone use. That data is processed and sold to third parties for targeted advertising. The concern, as before, is that those third parties use the data to manipulate consumers into behaviors that do not serve their genuine interests, while data collection firms use their position to entrench market power.
Concerns about privacy are equally well-established. Vance Packard warned in 1964 about a “naked society” emerging from widespread data collection that threatened privacy, individual autonomy, and democratic governance. Debates about surveillance, data banks, and the erosion of private life have existed in the United States since the late nineteenth century, spanning journalistic technologies, market research practices, workplace testing, and government programs.
What makes surveillance capitalism different is the scale and precision of data collection, not its fundamental nature. Greater micro-level data and more effective targeting represent a difference of degree. The underlying concerns about manipulation, behavioral modification, and privacy remain structurally the same. Whether those concerns are realized in practice depends on the institutional environment.
Surveillance Capitalism in Private Markets
Evaluating surveillance capitalism in private markets requires taking seriously the institutional features of those markets, particularly the role of competition, feedback, and legal constraint. Critics focus on the harms. A complete analysis requires accounting for the mechanisms that limit those harms and the benefits that data collection produces.
Advertising as Information
George Stigler’s foundational work on the economics of information established that advertising performs a genuine informational function. In any market, consumers face search costs. They do not have perfect knowledge of available products, prices, or sellers. Advertising reduces those search costs by providing information about what is available and from whom. The result is lower prices, either in monetary terms or in terms of the time required to make a purchase.
This logic applies directly to surveillance capitalism. When data-collection firms package consumer behavior data and sell it to third parties for targeted advertising, one legitimate function of that process is connecting consumers with information about products they are likely to want. The existence of intermediary data brokers does not eliminate the welfare-enhancing function of reducing search costs. It restructures who performs that function and how.
Advertising as Entrepreneurship and Persuasion
Israel Kirzner’s work on entrepreneurship adds a second dimension. Advertising does not simply reduce the cost of finding information that consumers are already looking for. It alerts consumers to opportunities they did not know existed. This is a different function from search cost reduction. A consumer cannot search for something they do not know is available. Entrepreneurial advertising creates awareness where none existed.
Persuasion plays a related role. Deirdre McCloskey has argued that what she calls “sweet talk” operates throughout economic life, facilitating cooperation and exchange through language and human interaction. Persuasion is not inherently deceptive. Most of it is not. The fact that advertising aims to persuade consumers rather than simply inform them does not make it manipulative in the pejorative sense. It makes it one instance of the broader human practice of communicating value and fostering voluntary exchange.
Surveillance capitalism incorporates both functions. Micro-level data allows advertisers to target their entrepreneurial efforts at specific consumers, alerting them to products and services that fit with their existing preferences and behavior patterns. Effective persuasion of this kind advances consumer welfare by expanding the range of opportunities people are aware of.
Advertising as Competition
Friedrich Hayek understood competition not as a static state but as a dynamic process of discovery and learning. In this context, advertising is one dimension of competitive activity. Competing advertisers developing strategies to capture consumer attention disseminate information that no one knew was needed and stimulate the provision of goods and services whose importance to consumers would otherwise go unrecognized.
Harold Demsetz extended this by arguing that advertising fosters contestability rather than monopoly. Advertising allows new entrants and smaller firms to compete with established incumbents by informing consumers that alternatives exist and persuading them to consider those alternatives. Without advertising, incumbents benefit from the advantages of familiarity and established reputation. Restricting advertising does not promote competition. It protects incumbents.
The surveillance capitalism critique argues that a small number of Big Tech companies, primarily Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, are using their data collection capabilities to entrench monopoly power. This concern has historical parallels in earlier critiques of advertising-based monopoly that also proved incomplete. AOL, BlackBerry, IBM, Myspace, and Yahoo all held dominant positions in their respective markets. Competitive entrepreneurship displaced each of them. More recently, dissatisfaction with major social media platforms’ content moderation practices has driven the emergence of alternative platforms competing for users with different values and preferences.
The Manipulation Problem and Its Limits
The manipulation concern at the core of the surveillance capitalism critique deserves serious attention. If behavioral targeting is effective at changing consumer behavior in ways that consumers would not endorse if they understood what was happening, that is a genuine harm.
The empirical evidence on this question is more complicated than the critics allow. Studies of behavioral targeting find that targeted advertisements are effective only when they align with a consumer’s prior behavior. An ad connecting to someone’s demonstrated environmental concerns increases the likelihood of a click-through and purchase. An ad for a random product or one that cuts against established interests does not affect behavior. This suggests that targeted advertising amplifies pre-existing preferences by surfacing relevant opportunities. It does not create wants from scratch as Galbraith argued.
Hugo Mercier’s work on human cognition reaches a similar conclusion. People are not passive recipients of information. They evaluate communicated information using dedicated cognitive mechanisms, weighing cues about credibility, expertise, and trustworthiness before updating their beliefs or behavior. Attempts at mass manipulation fail far more often than they succeed. The gap between public perception of media influence and the reality of that influence is substantial.
This does not mean manipulation never occurs. It means the claim that surveillance capitalism systematically manipulates millions of people against their genuine interests requires evidence that the empirical record does not consistently support.
Counteracting Institutions
Private markets also generate mechanisms that limit information asymmetries between data collectors and users. George Akerlof identified the problem of adverse selection in markets with information asymmetries and noted that entrepreneurial innovation generates counteracting institutions to address those asymmetries. The same dynamic operates in the context of data collection.
Apple introduced privacy features through its mobile operating system allowing users to control whether apps can access the Identifier for Advertising assigned to their device. These features were marketed as a competitive differentiator, informing consumers about data collection practices while distinguishing Apple products from competitors. Third-party tracking blockers, browser extensions, and privacy-focused browsers including Brave, DuckDuckGo, Waterfox, and Epic Privacy Browser give users tools to limit data collection.
Virtual private networks offered by for-profit firms encrypt internet activity and hide users’ IP addresses by routing traffic through private servers, making it significantly harder for third parties to collect data on specific individuals. Personal data removal services contact data holders on behalf of clients to remove sensitive information from public databases.
These innovations demonstrate the market’s capacity to respond to consumer demand for privacy. Where information asymmetries exist, competitive entrepreneurship creates tools that give consumers greater control. This is not a complete solution. But it is a meaningful constraint on the unchecked data collection that critics of surveillance capitalism treat as the inevitable outcome of the current system.
Surveillance capitalists operating in the United States face institutional constraints that private markets impose directly. Freedom of entry allows competitors to offer privacy-protective alternatives. Freedom of voice allows consumers and competitors to challenge deceptive or manipulative practices. Legal institutions including courts and state enforcement of fraud and false advertising law provide formal recourse. The protection of property rights means that surveillance capitalists cannot use force to prevent the emergence of technologies that limit their data collection.
These constraints are imperfect. But their existence is institutionally significant.
The Surveillance State
The surveillance state refers to the collection, processing, and use of data by government agencies to monitor citizens and residents. Understanding its welfare consequences requires distinguishing between two fundamentally different functions that government surveillance can serve: the protective-productive function, where surveillance supports legitimate state activities that enhance citizen welfare, and the predatory function, where surveillance is used to benefit political elites at the expense of the general population.
James Buchanan’s framework for analyzing the state provides the analytical foundation. The protective-productive state enhances welfare by protecting constitutional rights and providing valued services. The predatory state reduces welfare by violating rights or extracting resources from citizens to benefit the politically connected. Both functions are available to governments that possess surveillance capabilities. The institutional environment determines which function dominates.
The Protective-Productive Surveillance State
Government service provision inherently involves the collection and processing of information. Citizens filing taxes provide identifying information and income details. Census data informs resource allocation across public services. Traffic monitoring data informs infrastructure planning. In each case, data collection serves a direct function in the provision of government services.
Smart cities represent a contemporary application of this principle. Technologically integrated urban environments collect data from multiple sources including citizen activity, infrastructure sensors, and service usage patterns. Processed in real time, this data can improve the delivery of utilities, transportation, public safety, and other services. Data collection used this way serves the interests of the citizens from whom the data is collected.
The national security surveillance state presents a more complex case. The argument for mass surveillance as a protective-productive function rests on its effectiveness as an input into security and policing activities. To the extent that surveillance is limited in scope, subject to meaningful oversight, and effective in identifying genuine threats, it can contribute to the protection of rights and institutions. Government advertising also serves legitimate functions in informing citizens about candidates and available public services, and interjurisdictional competition, where jurisdictions advertise their advantages to attract residents and businesses, can discipline governments to be responsive to citizen preferences.
The Effectiveness Problem
The protective-productive surveillance state faces systematic institutional problems that limit its effectiveness and create openings for predation.
Government institutions lack the price mechanism that coordinates activity in private markets. Property rights, prices, and profit and loss are absent in government settings. Without these mechanisms, the information and incentive functions they perform in markets must be replaced by political substitutes. Those substitutes generate systematically different outcomes.
Richard Wagner and Diego Yazigi draw a distinction between logical and non-logical action. Markets are the domain of logical action where producer offerings can be compared directly using prices and qualities. Politics is the domain of non-logical action where no such direct comparison is available. Because political activity cannot leverage the economic knowledge that emerges through market exchange, decisions made in political settings are systematically less informed than comparable market decisions.
The incentive problems in democratic political institutions compound the knowledge problems. Rational voter ignorance, vote bundling, the limitations of a single vote, the timing gaps between elections, principal-agent problems between voters and elected officials, the concentration of benefits and diffusion of costs by special interest groups, and the incentives facing elected officials and bureaucrats to secure immediate benefits while shifting costs to others in the present and future all weaken the link between political action and citizen preferences.
Many political goods are credence goods, meaning that voters cannot assess their quality before, during, or after consumption. A politician makes claims about the benefits of a national security program or a large-scale stimulus investment. There is no way for citizen-voters to observe the counterfactual, evaluate whether the program actually produced the claimed benefits, or identify the specific factors responsible for the observable outcome. This informational structure severely limits voter accountability over the surveillance state.
The Predatory Surveillance State
The predatory surveillance state is not a hypothetical concern. It is a documented pattern in American history and a present reality in multiple countries.
The paradox of government power is structural. A government capable of protecting rights is capable of violating them. Once established as sovereign, government does not necessarily remain within its delegated authority. The national security state is particularly vulnerable to this dynamic. As Norman Dorsen observed, foreign affairs and national security have historically been a graveyard for civil liberties in the United States.
The most documented historical example is COINTELPRO, a covert surveillance program run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the 1950s through the 1970s. The program infiltrated and collected intelligence on peace activists, anti-war groups, civil rights leaders, and political parties. Its purpose was not to prevent violence but to limit the exercise of First Amendment rights. The U.S. Senate Select Committee that investigated COINTELPRO after it became public concluded that the Bureau had conducted a vigilante operation aimed at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, using techniques that would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all targets had been involved in violent activity.
This was not an isolated incident. Following the September 11 attacks, Muslim Americans were subjected to broad surveillance without individualized suspicion. Research suggests that awareness of this surveillance led members of that community to alter their daily behavior out of fear, a direct suppression of constitutionally protected activity through the chilling effect of state monitoring.
Several institutional features make the national security surveillance state particularly conducive to predation.
First, national security is a government monopoly. Unlike surveillance capitalism, which operates in a market where users can switch to alternatives, exit from national security surveillance is not available. Citizens cannot choose a different government security provider. The discipline that competitive markets impose through the threat of losing customers does not operate here.
Second, political power concentrated in the national security apparatus is both discretionary and extra-constitutional. The justification is that security threats require rapid responses to unforeseen circumstances. The effect is that a small group of people holds powers that the constitutional structure does not clearly authorize and that existing oversight mechanisms cannot effectively check.
Third, the national security state operates under conditions of purposeful secrecy. This is not simply the rational ignorance of voters who choose not to pay attention because information gathering is costly relative to the marginal influence of their vote. It is the structural inability of citizens to access information they would want if they could get it. The secrecy that protects genuine security information also protects abuses of power from scrutiny.
The NSA programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 illustrate the scale of the problem. Snowden’s disclosures established that the PRISM program collected data from at least nine major technology companies including Apple, Google, and Microsoft, requiring those companies to comply. The NSA tapped directly into the data centers of Google and Yahoo without their knowledge. The XKeyscore program allowed NSA analysts to search comprehensive databases of metadata and content without prior authorization. The NSA actively weakened internet security standards and required technology companies to install backdoors providing government access.
Earlier, in 2005, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration had authorized warrantless monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people abroad through the NSA. The administration classified this program as a “covert action” rather than an “intelligence activity,” a distinction that allowed it to brief only eight congressional leaders rather than the full intelligence committees. Even after the program became public, congressional oversight was limited. Republican control of both the legislative and executive branches at the time reduced the likelihood of serious pushback on national security grounds.
Amy Zegart’s research on congressional oversight of intelligence activities identifies structural reasons for this weakness: insufficient expertise among oversight committee members and inadequate budget authority over the intelligence community. These structural deficits create substantial space for intelligence agencies to act with discretion, unchecked by mechanisms that might align their behavior with citizen welfare.
Entanglement Between Government and Private Institutions
The relationship between the surveillance state and private data collection firms is not simply parallel. In significant cases, the two are entangled in ways that change the nature of both.
One form of entanglement is parasitic. State institutions take data collected by private firms, sometimes with the firms’ knowledge and compliance, and sometimes without it. The Snowden revelations established that the NSA accessed private firm data through multiple mechanisms including legal compulsion, covert technical access, and exploitation of security vulnerabilities. Under these conditions, the data that surveillance capitalists collect to facilitate coordination in private markets becomes infrastructure for broad state monitoring and control of private persons. The nature of surveillance capitalism activities changes fundamentally when the data ends up in government hands for purposes of tracking and control rather than targeted commercial advertising.
The second form of entanglement is through government funding. The military funding of technology firms has a long history in the United States. Amazon, Palantir, Google, and Microsoft all hold significant government contracts. Google has created a standalone division, Google Public Sector, specifically to improve its efficiency in securing government work.
This funding creates conditions for what Randall Holcombe calls “political capitalism,” characterized by rent seeking, rent extraction, and regulatory capture. When firms derive substantial revenue from government contracts, competition for that revenue shifts from market activity to political activity. Success depends less on satisfying consumer preferences than on cultivating political relationships. Firms that secure government contracts gain advantages over new entrants that have nothing to do with the quality of their products or services.
Government demand for private services is also structurally different from private market demand. Contract budgets are fixed for given periods. Demand is relatively price inelastic because political institutions lack the incentive structures that make price sensitivity rational in markets. There is no clear residual claimant with an interest in minimizing costs. New entrants cannot rely on expanding the market by offering better value at lower prices. They must displace established incumbents competing for fixed government funds. The result is reduced competitive pressure in markets that are nominally private but substantially shaped by government purchasing.
Amazon’s trajectory illustrates the dynamic. The company attracted intense scrutiny as a potential retail monopolist. But its future increasingly depends on securing classified government contracts including intelligence agency data services. Government privilege and political relationships, not market competition alone, shape the boundaries of its market position.
Finally, the legal coercive capacity of the surveillance state produces consequences that surveillance capitalism cannot. Governments can legally restrict competition, mandate compliance, and suppress the emergence of counteracting institutions. The Chinese government’s extensive internet censorship eliminates the informational alternatives that competitive markets generate. The Biden administration’s documented pressure on Facebook and Twitter to censor COVID-related content it deemed disinformation demonstrates that this dynamic is not limited to authoritarian governments. The FBI’s shutdown of Silk Road and the Chinese government’s prosecution of VPN providers show that governments can legally suppress the privacy-protective technologies that emerge in private markets as counteracting institutions.
Surveillance capitalists cannot do any of this. They can create information asymmetries and engage in persuasion. They cannot compel compliance, prohibit alternatives, or suppress tools that limit their data collection.
What the Institutional Comparison Shows
Comparing surveillance capitalism and the surveillance state through the lens of comparative institutional analysis yields several conclusions that neither the critics of surveillance capitalism nor the defenders of national security surveillance typically acknowledge.
Weak Agency
Both surveillance capitalism and the surveillance state raise concerns about weak agency, meaning the ability of people to act independently to pursue their own interests and welfare. People subject to either form of surveillance often lack meaningful knowledge about how data collected on them is being used. This informational gap limits their capacity for autonomous decision-making.
The degree of weak agency differs between the two contexts.
Surveillance capitalists are required to provide disclosures about their data practices, however inadequate those disclosures may be in practice. Private markets create rivalry that generates innovation over time, producing the privacy tools described above. The structural conditions exist for weak agency to be reduced through market responses to consumer demand.
The surveillance state operates differently. National security surveillance specifically aims to keep its activities hidden. Citizens are surveilled without knowledge of any terms or conditions. There are no disclosures. The monopoly structure of government security eliminates the rivalry that drives innovation toward privacy protection in private markets. Principal-agent problems between citizens and security officials are pervasive and documented.
Property Rights and Enforcement
The weak agency problem in surveillance capitalism stems in part from the absence of clearly defined digital property rights. It is not legally settled whether surveillance capitalists should face penalties for using consumer data in ways those consumers would not have authorized if asked. Establishing and enforcing digital property rights in government would reduce weak agency in private markets by creating legal accountability.
The surveillance state’s monopolistic and secretive character limits its vulnerability to feedback from citizens even where property rights are legally established. The probability of discovery and legal accountability for welfare-reducing surveillance operations by government is structurally lower than for private actors. This asymmetry means that weak agency in markets where behavioral surplus flows to government remains more difficult to address.
Coercive Capacity
The most fundamental institutional difference is coercive capacity. Private institutions cannot legally use force or coercion to achieve their goals. Government institutions can. This difference determines the character and magnitude of potential harms.
When surveillance capitalism and the surveillance state are entangled, the coercive capacity of government applies to data originally collected in private markets. Data collected to facilitate commercial advertising becomes data used for control and coercion. The harms that result are not comparable to those produced by surveillance capitalism operating in purely private markets. They are categorically different.
Addressing the Predatory State
The structural difficulty in addressing predatory surveillance by the government is that the default response, passing laws restricting surveillance with enforcement by political authorities, reproduces the problem it is meant to solve. Authorities assigned to enforce privacy protections retain access to surveillance capabilities. The legal constraint creates an appearance of protection without necessarily providing the reality.
David Brin argued in 1998 that advances in surveillance technology are not reversible. The question is not whether surveillance will exist but who can watch whom. His proposed response is reciprocal transparency. Citizens should be able to observe authorities in the same way authorities can observe citizens. Where secrecy is the institutional rule, political elites retain surveillance capability regardless of legal restrictions on its use. Where non-elites can monitor elites, it creates a meaningful check on abuses of power.
Reciprocal transparency is not a complete solution. Implementing it within existing institutional structures faces serious practical obstacles. But as a principle, it identifies the core problem clearly. The danger of the predatory surveillance state is not simply that it watches citizens. It is that it watches citizens without being watched in return, under conditions of secrecy that prevent accountability.
Conclusion
Data collection is not inherently harmful or beneficial. Whether it enhances or reduces the welfare of surveilled individuals depends on the institutional environment in which it takes place, specifically the incentive structures, knowledge conditions, feedback mechanisms, and coercive capacities of the institutions involved.
The rise of surveillance capitalism reflects technological advances that make data collection more extensive and targeting more precise. Critics are right that these developments raise genuine concerns about privacy, manipulation, and the concentration of market power. But those concerns need to be evaluated against the institutional features of private markets: competitive pressure, consumer feedback, legal accountability, and the entrepreneurial generation of counteracting institutions. Private markets are imperfect. The forces that discipline opportunistic behavior in those markets are real and operate continuously.
The surveillance state raises concerns that are structurally different in kind. Government surveillance operates under conditions of legal coercion, monopoly control, purposeful secrecy, and systematic insulation from citizen feedback. The documented history of predatory surveillance by the United States government, from COINTELPRO through the NSA programs revealed by Snowden, demonstrates that these concerns are not theoretical. They are realized in practice in a Constitutional Republic with explicit commitments to individual rights and limited government.
The entanglement of private surveillance capitalism with the surveillance state compounds both problems. Data collected in private markets for commercial purposes becomes infrastructure for state monitoring and control. Government contracts reshape the competitive structure of private technology markets in ways that benefit politically connected firms at the expense of market competition. Coercive capacity that surveillance capitalists do not possess is exercised over data that surveillance capitalists collect.
The central insight of comparative institutional analysis is that no institution is perfect and no comparison is between a flawed reality and an ideal alternative. Both private markets and government institutions have structural features that can produce good and bad outcomes. Evaluating those outcomes requires examining actual institutions with their actual incentives and constraints, not imagined alternatives.
In the context of surveillance, that examination points in a clear direction. The institutional features of private markets, imperfect as they are, create conditions that limit predatory surveillance and generate responses to consumer demand for privacy. The institutional features of the national security surveillance state create conditions that enable predatory surveillance and limit accountability. The coercive capacity that differentiates government from private actors determines the magnitude of the harms that can result.
Individual agency, freedom, and self-governance are undermined when surveillance operates without accountability. The institutional environment determines when that condition is met. In private markets, accountability mechanisms exist and function, however imperfectly. In the national security surveillance state, those mechanisms have been systematically circumvented. That difference is the beginning of an honest evaluation of what mass surveillance means for human freedom.
Margin of the Law publishes constitutional analysis, civic research, and legal education for people who want to understand the system they actually live in. Read the Full Constitutional Analysis Library at marginofthelaw.com.
© 2026 – MK3 Law Group
For republication or citation, please credit this article with link attribution to marginofthelaw.com.