The Safety–Liberty Tradeoff: When Does Protection Become Control?

Report body

The Safety–Liberty Tradeoff: When Does Protection Become Control?

The tension between individual liberty and collective safety constitutes the most enduring dilemma in political philosophy, jurisprudence, and technological governance. Historically, this debate centered on the physical policing of the state and the protection of borders. However, in the contemporary era of ubiquitous digital infrastructure and rapidly advancing neurotechnology, this tension has fundamentally shifted. It has evolved into a pervasive struggle over cognitive liberty, information access, and intellectual autonomy. The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence, mass surveillance networks, algorithmic content curation, and biometric tracking has armed both state and corporate actors with unprecedented mechanisms for population control. These mechanisms are almost universally introduced under the auspices of "safety."
Yet, the invocation of safety is both legally and politically ambiguous. It can denote a genuine, rigorously engineered effort to prevent verifiable, direct harm, or it can function as a rhetorical mechanism designed to bypass democratic deliberation and continuously expand institutional authority. An analytical approach to this dilemma cannot begin by assuming either that safety regulation is inherently an illegitimate intrusion on liberty, nor can it assume that all restrictions promulgated in the name of safety are inherently justified. An advanced society requires a rigorous, forensic framework to evaluate every claimed safety restriction. This report investigates the political and technological arguments surrounding the safety-liberty tradeoff, explores historical precedents of crisis expansion, develops the concept of the "safety poison pill," and proposes a comprehensive methodology for distinguishing genuine protection from creeping institutional control.

Theoretical Foundations: The Mechanics of Threat and Institutional Expansion

To understand how safety justifications operate to restrict liberty, it is necessary to examine the underlying mechanisms of crisis response, threat construction, and the sociology of security. Two theoretical models are paramount to this understanding: the Securitization Theory of the Copenhagen School and the macroeconomic concept of the "Ratchet Effect."

Securitization Theory and the Construction of Emergencies

Developed by the Copenhagen School of security studies—most notably through the work of Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan—Securitization Theory posits that "security" is not an objective state of nature, but a socially constructed reality established through discursive practices1. The traditional view of security focuses on objective, quantifiable military threats to a state. Securitization Theory, however, explains how non-traditional issues are moved out of the realm of normal political debate and into the realm of emergency action.
This transformation occurs through a "speech act"1. A securitizing actor (typically a powerful government official, corporate executive, or institutional leader) declares a specific phenomenon to be an immediate, existential threat to a referent object (e.g., public health, child welfare, the integrity of elections, or the survival of the state)1. The speech act's purpose is not merely to describe the world, but to perform a political function: it demands that the audience (the public, the judiciary, or legislative bodies) accept the framing of the existential threat, thereby legitimizing the suspension of normal legal and political constraints and justifying the use of extraordinary, emergency measures1.
For a securitizing move to be successful, it relies entirely on the audience's intersubjective acceptance of the threat3. Once accepted, the issue bypasses the standard rules of democratic deliberation. In the contemporary technological environment, issues such as "misinformation," "hate speech," and "algorithmic bias" are frequently and aggressively securitized1. By framing uncurated information access as an existential threat to democracy or psychological safety, state and corporate actors attempt to legitimize extraordinary interventions into free expression and cognitive liberty.

The Ratchet Effect: How Crises Forge Permanent Control

The second foundational concept is the "Ratchet Effect," a historical and economic theory articulated by Robert Higgs in his seminal work, Crisis and Leviathan6. Higgs analyzed the growth of government power throughout the twentieth century, focusing on the dimensions of taxation, government spending, and regulation6. He observed that institutional authority does not grow in a slow, linear, or organic fashion; rather, it expands sharply and disproportionately in response to major crises, such as World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II6.
During these crises, the public—driven by the immediate psychological need for safety and resolution—readily accepts broad restrictions on civil liberties, massive increases in surveillance, and the delegation of unprecedented regulatory powers to centralized authorities6. The critical insight of the Ratchet Effect is its aftermath: when the crisis inevitably subsides, the newly established institutional powers never fully recede to their pre-crisis baseline6. The bureaucratic infrastructure, the surveillance capabilities, the expanded budgets, and the legal precedents remain permanently embedded in the state apparatus.
This unidirectional expansion of control has accelerated in the twenty-first century. The surveillance architectures implemented following the September 11 attacks, initially justified as temporary anti-terrorism measures, were seamlessly integrated into domestic law enforcement and mass data collection programs, remaining largely intact decades later6. When evaluating safety restrictions on technology, communications, and cognitive liberty, the Ratchet Effect dictates a baseline assumption: any mechanism of control, once constructed, will likely outlive the specific emergency that originally justified its creation, and its capabilities will be repurposed for broader institutional objectives.

Historical Precedents: Justified Protections versus Excessive Restrictions

History is replete with examples where safety claims produced a complex mixture of justified protections and severe, excessive restrictions on liberty. During World War I, the United States implemented necessary logistical and industrial controls to support the war effort (justified protections). Concurrently, however, the government passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which were utilized to criminalize anti-war speech, silence political dissidents, and heavily censor the press under the guise of national security.
Similarly, during World War II, the mobilization of the economy and the implementation of coastal blackout regulations represented genuine safety engineering against direct military threats. Yet, the exact same executive authority, functioning under the identical justification of national security and public safety, resulted in the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans—a catastrophic violation of liberty driven by hysteria and institutional self-protection rather than demonstrated harm. In the modern digital context, these historical lessons demonstrate that the presence of a genuine threat does not legitimize every proposed safety intervention. An actual crisis often serves as a trojan horse for paternalism, political censorship, and permanent behavioral control.

A Rigorous Framework for Evaluating Safety Restrictions

To navigate the safety-liberty tradeoff without capitulating to absolute deregulation or pervasive authoritarianism, every proposed restriction on cognitive liberty, privacy, speech, or search must be subjected to a stringent forensic evaluation. The following analytical framework systematically interrogates the nature of the harm, the proportionality of the intervention, the procedural safeguards, and the institutional incentives underlying any proposed safety measure. This framework utilizes a specific sequence of inquiries to dissect the anatomy of the restriction.

Domain 1: Harm Assessment and Probability

The foundational inquiry demands a precise definition of the threat. The questions are: What specific harm is being prevented? Is the harm demonstrated or merely hypothetical? How probable is it? How severe is it? The burden of proof must fall entirely on the restricting authority to demonstrate that the harm is tangible, empirically verifiable, and imminent. A high-probability, high-severity event, such as the facilitation of physical terrorism, demands a different calculus than a low-probability, highly subjective harm, such as the potential for a user to experience psychological discomfort from an uncurated algorithmic feed8. Vague invocations of "societal harm," "reputational damage," or "democratic backsliding" are rhetorically powerful but analytically useless; they function primarily to bypass strict scrutiny.

Domain 2: Tailoring, Alternatives, and Lawful Conduct

If a legitimate, demonstrated harm is identified, the intervention must be assessed for proportionality. Is the restriction narrowly tailored to that harm? Is there a less restrictive alternative? Does the restriction affect lawful conduct? Does it interfere with private inquiry or thought? Overbroad restrictions that capture vast amounts of protected expression or private data in the pursuit of a narrow threat violate core constitutional principles, mirroring the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine9. If a technology company or government can achieve the same safety outcome through user empowerment (e.g., decentralized, opt-in filtering) rather than structural prohibition (e.g., systemic content bans), the less restrictive alternative must be favored. Crucially, interventions that preemptively monitor, throttle, or restrict activities that are completely legal—such as private communication or controversial political inquiry—represent a dangerous transition from reactive law enforcement to proactive behavioral control. The right to intellectual autonomy requires a sanctuary for unexpressed thoughts and unmonitored information gathering; restrictions that breach this sanctuary interfere directly with cognitive liberty11.

Domain 3: Transparency, Accountability, and Incentives

The legitimacy of a safety restriction is heavily dependent on its procedural architecture. Is the decision transparent? Can affected people challenge it? Who decides what qualifies as unsafe? What incentives does that decision-maker have?
Secret algorithms, shadow-banning mechanisms, and classified surveillance courts operate fundamentally outside the bounds of democratic accountability. Furthermore, the entity granted the authority to define "safety" will inevitably define it in ways that protect its own institutional interests. Corporate entities are incentivized to minimize public relations liabilities, appease advertisers, and avoid regulatory scrutiny; political actors are incentivized to suppress dissent, curate favorable narratives, and retain power.

Domain 4: Longevity and Asymmetry

Finally, one must evaluate the temporal and egalitarian nature of the restriction. Is the restriction temporary or effectively permanent? Is there independent oversight? Does the authority expand after being established? Are exceptions available to governments, corporations, researchers, or privileged institutions that ordinary users do not receive?
A system that enforces absolute safety restrictions on the general public while granting raw data access, unmonitored capabilities, or algorithmic exemptions to elites is not a safety mechanism; it is a stratification of power. True emergency measures must contain definitive sunset clauses and be subject to rigorous, adversarial independent oversight.

The Concept of the "Safety Poison Pill"

The application of the aforementioned framework across various technological domains reveals a recurring architectural strategy utilized by both state apparatuses and monopolistic technology corporations. This strategy can be defined as the "Safety Poison Pill."
A safety poison pill is a policy structure or technological deployment in which an emotionally compelling, highly localized safety justification causes the public and policymakers to accept a broader mechanism of structural control, the eventual scope of which greatly exceeds the original harm cited. The anatomy of the poison pill relies on exploiting psychological vulnerabilities and moral outrage. The securitizing actor identifies a referent object that is universally cherished—most frequently, the physical safety of children, the prevention of sexual exploitation, or the deterrence of catastrophic terrorism1. The proposed solution requires the installation of a pervasive, omnidirectional monitoring or control infrastructure.
If privacy advocates or civil libertarians oppose the infrastructure, they are morally indicted as defenders of the horrific harm (e.g., the assertion that opposing ubiquitous surveillance is equivalent to supporting child exploitation). Because the political cost of opposing the measure becomes unacceptably high, the public swallows the pill. The immediate effect may indeed address the cited harm. However, the "poison" lies in the latent capabilities of the newly installed architecture. Once a ubiquitous system for scanning, filtering, or controlling data is normalized and deployed, the definitions of what constitutes a "threat" are inevitably broadened by subsequent administrations, corporate boards, or bureaucratic mandate. The architecture remains; only the targets change.

Case Study 1: Client-Side Scanning (CSS) and the End of Privacy

The ultimate manifestation of the safety poison pill in the modern era is the push for Client-Side Scanning (CSS). As end-to-end encryption (E2EE) has become the global standard for securing private communications, banking, and government affairs, law enforcement agencies have argued that encryption creates a "going dark" problem that shields criminals14. To bypass encryption without breaking it mathematically, governments and tech companies have proposed CSS. Under a CSS regime, the scanning for illicit content does not happen in transit (which remains encrypted); it happens directly on the user's personal device before the message is encrypted and sent14.

Applying the Framework to CSS

• Harm Assessment: The specific harm being prevented is typically the distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)—a demonstrated, highly severe, and universally recognized harm14.
• Proportionality and Lawful Conduct: Is the restriction narrowly tailored? No. CSS, by its nature, requires installing a surveillance apparatus on every citizen's personal device, scanning every image and message. It affects the lawful conduct of the entire population, transforming the personal device from private property into an instrument of state or corporate policing18. There are less restrictive alternatives, such as traditional, targeted law enforcement investigation, rather than bulk surveillance of the innocent14.
• Cognitive and Private Interference: CSS destroys the expectation of privacy. When citizens know their private communications are being actively scanned by black-box algorithms on their own devices, it severely chills freedom of speech and political inquiry14.
• Incentives, Expansion, and Exceptions: Who decides what is unsafe? The scanning relies on proprietary tools and known-bad lists that can be altered remotely by corporations or governments14. Does the authority expand? This is the core of the poison pill. The same perceptual hashing or machine learning algorithms used to detect CSAM can be seamlessly updated to scan for political dissent, unapproved literature, or restricted religious texts14. CSS transforms end-to-end encryption from a fundamental right to a conditional privilege, creating a turnkey authoritarian surveillance grid under the unimpeachable banner of child safety14. It fails the framework entirely, representing surveillance masquerading as safety engineering.

Case Study 2: Cognitive Liberty, AI, and the Forum Internum

The frontier of the safety-liberty tradeoff lies not in physical space, but in the human mind. "Cognitive liberty" or "cognitive freedom" is an emerging conceptual framework that updates the traditional human right to freedom of thought for the era of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology11.
Under international law, such as Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), freedom of thought is absolute. It protects the forum internum—the inner sanctuary of the mind, where beliefs and thoughts are formed, entirely immune from state interference22. Historically, this right was practically easy to protect because the mind was biologically isolated; the state could regulate external actions (forum externum), but it could not read or directly manipulate internal thoughts24. Today, wearable sensors, neural interfaces, and the commodification of brain data threaten to breach this sanctuary directly25. Simultaneously, modern AI algorithms operate beneath the threshold of conscious awareness, silently shaping perceptions, exploiting cognitive vulnerabilities, and altering thought without meaningful consent11.

Applying the Framework to AI Safety Regulations

The European Union's AI Act represents a pioneering attempt to address these threats by explicitly banning "manipulative AI" practices—specifically, systems that deploy subliminal techniques to materially distort a person's behavior in a manner that causes physical or psychological harm12. Furthermore, the EU AI Act prohibits the recognition of human emotion in the workplace via AI, classifying it as invasive emotional surveillance27.

• Harm Assessment: The harm is the non-consensual manipulation of human behavior and the erosion of mental autonomy11. This is a severe, increasingly probable harm demonstrated by hyper-nudging and addictive algorithmic design27.
• Proportionality and Lawful Conduct: The EU's ban on subliminal manipulation is narrowly tailored to systems that operate below human awareness to cause harm27. It protects lawful conduct (the right to think freely) by restricting illegitimate technological interference.
• Transparency and Incentives: However, evaluating broader "AI safety" regulations requires immense precision. As scholars point out, conversational Large Language Models (LLMs) that act as trusted confidants can prey on human loneliness, acting as "unregulated human research"8. Yet, if regulatory bodies heavily restrict LLMs to prevent "existential fear" or negative associations, they cross from safety engineering into ideological enforcement8. If an AI alignment board decides that an AI model must not output content that causes "psychological discomfort" or contradicts established political orthodoxies, it ceases to be a safety mechanism and becomes a tool for cognitive control8.
• Exceptions and Oversight: True cognitive liberty requires that citizens have the right to access diverse, raw, and even offensive information. When corporate AI developers implement safety guardrails that refuse to answer lawful user inquiries, while retaining unrestricted "jailbroken" models for their internal researchers or government partners, they establish an asymmetrical architecture of control that violates intellectual autonomy.

Case Study 3: Information Access, Jawboning, and Content Moderation

The control of information flows on the internet represents a highly contested battleground for the safety-liberty tradeoff. Governments increasingly view the unfettered exchange of information on social media not as a manifestation of a free society, but as a vector for danger, demanding stringent content moderation to protect the public from "misinformation," "hate speech," or "foreign interference."

Editorial Discretion vs. State Compulsion: Moody v. NetChoice

The Supreme Court case Moody v. NetChoice perfectly encapsulates the friction between state intervention and First Amendment liberties29. Florida and Texas enacted laws attempting to prohibit large social media platforms from banning users, de-boosting, or removing content based on political viewpoints29. The states framed these laws as necessary safety measures to protect the "marketplace of ideas" from monopolistic corporate censorship and to ensure a diversity of views29.
Applying the framework to the state laws:

• Harm Assessment: The states alleged the harm was the silencing of conservative viewpoints by liberal tech monopolies32. However, the Supreme Court recognized that forcing a private entity to disseminate speech it prefers to exclude is a direct violation of the First Amendment30. The act of compiling, curating, and moderating third-party content is an inherently expressive activity—an exercise of editorial discretion akin to a newspaper choosing which op-eds to publish30.
• Proportionality and Lawful Conduct: The state laws were incredibly broad, attempting to commandeer the editorial algorithms of private platforms31. The state cannot mandate "fairness" or "safety from bias" by compelling speech31. Moody established that state-mandated safety cannot supersede the fundamental right of private entities to control their own expressive environments.

Surrogate Censorship: Murthy v. Missouri

Conversely, Murthy v. Missouri addresses the inverse threat: the state utilizing private platforms as surrogate censors to bypass constitutional restrictions34. In Murthy, state and individual plaintiffs alleged that federal government officials engaged in a coercive pressure campaign—known as "jawboning"—to force social media companies to remove or throttle content related to COVID-19 policies and elections34.
Applying the framework to Jawboning:

• Harm Assessment: The government argued its actions were merely permissible "government speech," intended to promote public health and safety by alerting platforms to dangerous misinformation34. The plaintiffs argued the government utilized implicit threats of regulatory retaliation to coerce private platforms into violating the cognitive liberty and free speech rights of their users34.
• Transparency and Incentives: Jawboning fundamentally fails the transparency test. It occurs in private emails and backchannel meetings, denying affected users the ability to challenge the restriction34. The decision-makers are political officials heavily incentivized to suppress inconvenient data, political opposition, or dissenting scientific opinions.
• Interference with Private Inquiry: By designating specific domestic speech as a public safety emergency, the government justified bypassing deliberative legislative processes1. By laundering censorship through private platforms, the state achieved behavioral control and narrative dominance while maintaining plausible deniability regarding First Amendment violations. This constitutes a severe rhetorical mechanism for expanding institutional control.

Case Study 4: Privacy, Surveillance, and the Physical-Digital Nexus

The physical and digital tracking of citizens is frequently expanded in the name of safety, fundamentally eroding the expectation of privacy that underpins intellectual autonomy. Without privacy, cognitive liberty is impossible, as the constant awareness of surveillance intrinsically alters human behavior—the panopticon effect.
While the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, its application to modern technology has been severely weakened by the federal "Third-Party Doctrine," which posits that individuals have no expectation of privacy in data voluntarily given to third parties (e.g., tech companies, banks, cellular providers)36. In stark contrast, Article I, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution provides a vastly superior, explicit model for evaluating surveillance, protecting citizens against "unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means"37.

ALPRs and Drone Surveillance

The conflict between genuine safety engineering and surveillance control is clearly visible in the deployment of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), such as Flock Safety cameras, and law enforcement drones. ALPRs are sold to municipalities as safety tools to catch fugitives and solve crimes40.
Applying the framework to ALPRs and Drones:

• Harm Assessment: The harm cited is generalized crime. However, ALPRs execute mass, suspicionless data collection. They continuously scan, record, and store the movements, vehicle characteristics, and locations of every passing vehicle without any warrant or individualized suspicion40.
• Proportionality and Lawful Conduct: ALPRs are completely untailored. They capture parents driving to school, residents commuting, and visitors, tracking daily routines, medical visits, and political associations40. While driving occurs in public, systematic, automated, and persistent tracking fundamentally invades privacy and captures overwhelmingly lawful conduct40.
• Oversight and Expansion: To counter this function creep, Illinois enacted the Protecting Household Privacy Act (PHPA), which restricts law enforcement from accessing household electronic data stored by third parties without a warrant, actively closing the federal third-party loophole36. The PHPA mandates data destruction within 60 days if not part of an investigation36. Furthermore, Illinois strictly regulates the use of drones by law enforcement, generally requiring a search warrant based on probable cause limited to 45 days41. Exceptions are tightly bound: drones can be used for 48 hours to prevent imminent harm to life, or during a declared disaster to coordinate recovery41. These legislative guardrails demonstrate how safety tools can be implemented while actively severing the "poison pill" mechanism that leads to permanent mass surveillance.

Taxonomy of Interventions: Distinguishing Legitimate Protection from Institutional Control

To practically apply the analytical framework across vast regulatory environments, it is necessary to categorize the array of safety interventions into distinct operational typologies. The following criteria distinguish interventions that respect constitutional limits from those that exploit safety rhetoric for control.

Conclusion: The Liberty-Preserving Safety Test

The modern technological era requires a paradigm shift in how societies evaluate security. We must reject the foundational premise that every technological capability capable of enhancing "safety" ought to be deployed. Because institutional power inherently seeks to expand, and because securitization relies on circumventing democratic deliberation to establish a ratchet effect of control, the burden of proof must lie entirely on those proposing restrictions.
To operationalize the defense of cognitive liberty, free speech, privacy, and intellectual autonomy, lawmakers, technology developers, courts, journalists, and citizens should apply the following Liberty-Preserving Safety Test before accepting any proposed restriction. This test synthesizes the rigorous framework into actionable criteria:
The Specificity and Demonstration Requirement
The proposed measure must target a highly specific, empirically demonstrable harm. If the restriction relies on vague, subjective concepts—such as "misinformation," "societal health," or the prevention of "psychological offense"—it is illegitimate. The harm must be objectively verifiable and imminent, not hypothetical.
The Architecture of Control Test (The Anti-Poison Pill)
The intervention must be evaluated for its latent architectural capacity. Does the intervention require the construction of a permanent, ubiquitous surveillance or filtering architecture? If the measure requires breaking privacy fundamentals (such as E2EE through Client-Side Scanning) or instituting mass suspicionless data collection (such as unbounded ALPRs), it fails, regardless of the emotional weight of the initial justification.
The Cognitive Sovereignty Standard
The intervention must not interfere with the forum internum. It must not employ subliminal manipulation, algorithmic hyper-nudging, or covert behavioral control that bypasses conscious user consent. The individual’s right to unmonitored private inquiry and the formation of independent thought is absolute and cannot be compromised for collective psychological safety.
The Editorial and Speech Integrity Check
The state must not attempt to compel a private entity to speak, nor attempt to coerce a private platform (via jawboning or implicit regulatory threats) into censoring lawful expression. Corporate editorial discretion must remain free from state coercion, while state actions regarding speech must remain entirely transparent and subject to First Amendment constraints.
The Asymmetry and Elitism Assessment
The restriction must apply equally to all entities. It cannot create a class of privileged actors (e.g., state intelligence agencies, corporate AI trainers, or political incumbents) who operate free from the restrictions imposed on ordinary citizens. If the restriction is deemed necessary for the public, exceptions cannot be granted to institutions merely because of their status.
The Reversibility and Oversight Mandate
Any legitimate safety measure, particularly those utilizing emergency powers, must be strictly temporary. It must be tied exclusively to an active crisis, subject to independent adversarial judicial oversight, and contain definitive, hard-coded sunset clauses that require affirmative legislative action to renew.
When protection becomes control, it fundamentally alters the relationship between the individual and the governing authority, transitioning the citizen from a sovereign entity with intellectual autonomy into a managed subject within an automated behavioral architecture. True safety in an advanced democratic society is not derived from absolute, panoptic control; it is derived from the resilient preservation of liberty, privacy, and the unhindered freedom of the human mind.

Works cited

1. Key Concept: Securitization (Copenhagen School), https://criticallegalthinking.com/2025/03/31/key-concept-securitization-copenhagen-school/
2. In which ways could Copenhagen School's analysis of security be, https://politicon.co/en/essays/64/in-which-ways-could-copenhagen-schools-analysis-of-security-
3. The Audience in Securitization Theory - INSS, https://www.inss.org.il/strategic_assessment/the-audience-in-securitization-theory/
4. (PDF) An overview of the Copenhagen school's approach to security, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357796286_An_overview_of_the_Copenhagen_school's_approach_to_security_studies_constructing_insecurity_through_performative_power
5. Securitization Theories (Chapter 10) - The Big Picture as an, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/big-picture-as-an-approach-to-the-study-of-international-relations/securitization-theories/1B869308B42ADE7CC55A685AC5900963
6. Will Government be Permanently Larger After the Pandemic Ends?, https://www.hoover.org/research/will-government-be-permanently-larger-after-pandemic-ends
7. Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American, https://www.independent.org/store/book/crisis-and-leviathan-2025-edition/
8. Friend or Tether - University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons, https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=sjipl
9. Devil is in the Details: Interpreting Counterterrorism Legislation to, https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/devil-is-in-the-details-interpreting-counterterrorism-legislation-to-avoid-an-unconstitutional-result/
10. Due Process Overbreadth? The Void for Vagueness Doctrine, https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2081&context=olr
11. Cognitive freedom and legal accountability: Rethinking the EU AI, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/45F379C0707D7A415C042BB08088F88F/S3033373325000043a.pdf/cognitive_freedom_and_legal_accountability_rethinking_the_eu_ai_acts_theoretical_approach_to_manipulative_ai_as_unacceptable_risk.pdf
12. Cognitive freedom and legal accountability: Rethinking the EU AI, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-forum-on-ai-law-and-governance/article/cognitive-freedom-and-legal-accountability-rethinking-the-eu-ai-acts-theoretical-approach-to-manipulative-ai-as-unacceptable-risk/45F379C0707D7A415C042BB08088F88F
13. Overcoming the Normative Dilemma of Writing Security - ICIP, https://www.icip.cat/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/wp7_ang.pdf
14. (PDF) Bugs in our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355233857_Bugs_in_our_Pockets_The_Risks_of_Client-Side_Scanning
15. [2110.07450] Bugs in our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning, https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07450
16. Bugs in our pockets: the risks of client-side scanning, https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/10/1/tyad020/7590463
17. Bugs in our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Bugs-in-our-Pockets%3A-The-Risks-of-Client-Side-Abelson-Anderson/29c2bd88f7c7c83c94fb015b7397755182ee63de
18. Point-Counterpoint | Client-Side Scanning - Judicature, https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/you-are-being-scanned/
19. Bugs in our pockets: the risks of client-side scanning, https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article-abstract/10/1/tyad020/7590463
20. cognitive freedom:: a new human right born out of artificial intelligence, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386495855_COGNITIVE_FREEDOM_A_NEW_HUMAN_RIGHT_BORN_OUT_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE
21. Cognitive freedom (a human right born out of artificial intelligence), https://www.academia.edu/90681975/Cognitive_freedom_a_human_right_born_out_of_artificial_intelligence_
22. What Is “Thought”? Interpreting and Constructing Article 18 ICCPR, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399350137_What_Is_Thought_Interpreting_and_Constructing_Article_18_ICCPR_in_Light_of_the_Vienna_Convention
23. 'The Mind and Conscience Are the Person's Most Sacred Possessions', https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought/mind-and-conscience-are-the-persons-most-sacred-possessions/1A21E2ACC3A8B9CA6AB40EB663120BAD
24. Cognitive Liberty or the International Human Right to Freedom of, http://www.chrisbublitz.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Bublitz-Cognitive-Liberty-Human-Right_Handbook-Neuroethics-2015.pdf
25. Protecting Brain Data in the Age of AI: Constitutional and Neuro, https://ir.nbu.ac.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/6557107c-14b7-4853-b054-1054ddc29e42/content
26. We should be fighting for our cognitive liberty, says ethics expert, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/04/we-should-be-fighting-for-our-cognitive-liberty-says-ethics-expert/
27. The European Union on Cognitive Liberty within New Technologies, https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/the-european-union-on-cognitive-liberty-within-new-technologies
28. Enslaving Minds: On Freedom of Thought and the Exploitation of, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12594718/
29. Moody v. NetChoice: Implications for Speech Regulation - AAF, https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/moody-v-netchoice-implications-for-speech-regulation/
30. MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC | Supreme Court - Law.Cornell.Edu, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-277
31. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/moody-v-netchoice/
32. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC - The Federalist Society, https://fedsoc.org/case/moody-v-netchoice-llc
33. MOODY v. NETCHOICE | The Foundation for Individual ... - FIRE.org, https://www.fire.org/supreme-court/moody-v-netchoice/opinions
34. Murthy v. Missouri | Supreme Court Bulletin - Law.Cornell.Edu, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/23-411
35. Murthy v. Missouri, Government Jawboning, and Our Collective, https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/murthy-v-missouri-government-jawboning-and-our-collective-disinformation-problem
36. Illinois Limits Police Access to Data Stored by Third Parties, https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2022/jul/15/illinois-limits-police-access-data-stored-third-parties/
37. Illinois: Statutory Civil Law - Without My Consent, https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/illinois/statutory-civil-law/
38. People v. Cox :: 2000 :: Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District Decisions, https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-fifth-appellate-district/2000/5990238.html
39. Illinois and the Right of Privacy: History and Current Status, 11 J, https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2444&context=lawreview
40. Illinois Constitution vs. License Plate Cameras: Are Flock Cameras, https://jwcolelaw.com/illinois-constitution-vs-license-plate-cameras-are-flock-cameras-infringing-on-your-right-to-privacy/
41. Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act - Illinois General Assembly - -, https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=3520&ChapterID=54
42. Illinois Statutes Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses § 5/14-3 | FindLaw, https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-720-criminal-offenses/il-st-sect-720-5-14-3/