POL S 334 A: Topics in American Politics: LAW, SURVEILLANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Spring 2026
Meeting:
TTh 11:30am - 12:50pm
SLN:
18853
Section Type:
Lecture
TOPIC: LAW, SURVEILLANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ** POL S MAJORS: COUNTS FOR FIELD D, AMERICAN POLITICS
Syllabus Description (from Canvas):

POL S 334: Law, Surveillance, and Technology

Spring Quarter 2026

 

Professor Brie McLemore | email: bmclem@uw.edu

Tuesdays and Thursdays 11:30am - 12:50 p.m. | Thomson Hall 101

Office Hours: Wednesdays from 12pm to 2pm, by appointment (https://calendly.com/bmclem-uw/officehours)

Office: Gowen Hall 25

 

TAs:

  • Anna Nguyen: Sections AA and AB [nguyenad@uw.edu]
  • Cody Little: Sections AC and AD [colittle@uw.edu]

 

Sections:

  • AA: Friday 9:30 – 10:20 AM in Thomson Hall 335
  • AB: Friday 10:30 – 11:20 AM in Thomson Hall 325
  • AC: Friday 11:30 – 12:20 PM in Smith Hall 107
  • AD:  Friday 12:30 – 1:20 PM in Smith Hall 107

Course Description

Recent surveys reveal that the majority of U.S. adults are concerned about government uses of data, distrust tech corporations, and are skeptical about the effectiveness of existing privacy protections. These anxieties have manifested in increased pressure on governments and corporations to safeguard consumer privacy. Yet, significant gaps remain in regulating mass-surveillance technologies. 

This course will ask how and why technologies often evade regulatory efforts while contending with the real-world implications of surveillance. Students will hone their analytical skills by critically examining the possibilities and limitations of regulatory efforts by the courts, as well as local, state, and federal governing bodies. Through an intersectional lens, students will examine the disproportionate impact of surveillance on marginalized communities and how regulatory efforts fuel and legitimize such inequities.

This course will be historical in nature, situating contemporary manifestations of data-driven technologies within a lineage of increasing surveillance techniques adopted by the state and corporations. This will entail tracing the evolution of both technological innovations, as well as American legal reasoning from its Western philosophical origins to the court rulings and legislation of the present. Might it be possible that conceptions of freedom and self-determination, which serve as the foundation for privacy rights, actually function to undermine them in the digital age?

This course counts towards the Field D, American Government and Politics, requirement for Political Science majors.

Course Objectives

After successfully completing this course, students will be able to:  

  • Contextualize contemporary regulatory efforts within the broader historical construction of the American legal and political landscape
  • Situate current manifestations of surveillance technologies within a history of increasingly pervasive innovations
  • Identify the consequences of “big data” for individuals and social groups 
  • Differentiate and critique the particular ramifications of surveillance for vulnerable groups

Assignments

  • Participation

Students are expected to come to class and section fully prepared to engage with the course material by asking pertinent questions, offering critically-informed commentary, and responding to the insights of your peers. In order to ensure you are fully prepared, please plan to have all readings for the week completed by Tuesday's class. If you miss section, please prepare a 250-word response to the week’s readings and attend office hours with your TA in order to receive participation credit. 

 

  • Reading Responses (2)

Students will upload two response papers (no more than 1000 words) throughout the quarter for a week of their choosing. The papers will be uploaded to Canvas by 12pm on the day before class. The first reading response will focus on Modules 1 and 2 (weeks 1-5). The second reading response will touch on Modules 3 and 4 (weeks 6-10). This means that one reading response must be submitted by April 29th at 12pm and the second will be due by June 3rd at 12pm. These response papers should incorporate interesting takeaways, critiques, strengths and weaknesses of the proposed arguments, and/or outstanding questions regarding the course materials. Response papers should not summarize the readings, but instead focus on a specific topic or idea either from a specific reading or across all of the readings assigned for the week. These response papers should also address the overarching questions for the module of the course in which they are assigned, which are outlined below. Students are also invited to connect readings to previous materials from the course, as well as current events.

 

  • In Class Mid-Term Exam (May 5th)

Rubric will be shared one week before the mid-term

 

  • Final Essay (8-10 pages double-spaced) 

Students will submit a final paper totaling 8-10 pages (double-spaced, Times New Romans 12 point font) to Canvas by June 9th at 11:59pm. The final paper prompt and rubric will be shared before week 4 of the quarter.

 

  • Final Paper Proposal

Students will submit a paragraph detailing their paper topic, argument, and key readings from the course to Canvas. Students will receive feedback from their TAs, which they will be expected to incorporate into their final paper.

Grading

Grade Break-Down

Assignment

Grade Percentage

Due Date

Participation

10%

Reading Responses (2)

10% (5% each)

By 12pm on the Monday before class on Canvas

  • Reading Response #1 by April 29th
  • Reading Response #2 by June 3rd

In-Class Mid-Term Exam

30%

May 5th (11:30am - 12:50 pm)

Final Essay Prompt

5%

May 11th by 11:59pm to Canvas

Final Essay

45%

June 9th by 11:59pm to Canvas

 

Course Guidelines and Policies

Late Assignments

Given the brevity of the quarter system and that the assignments are designed to build off of one another, submitting assignments by the stated due date is essential for success in this course. If you suspect you will not be able to meet a course deadline, please reach out to your TAs immediately. Late assignments without prior approval from the instructor will not be accepted.

Students who need to make up the in-class mid-term must reach out to their TAs before the exam begins in order to reschedule. Failing to do so will result in a zero for the assignment. 

Academic Misconduct

The University takes academic integrity very seriously. Behaving with integrity is part of our responsibility to our shared learning community. 

Acts of academic misconduct may include but are not limited to:

  • Cheating (the acquisition, use, or distribution of unpublished materials created by another
    student without the express permission of the original author(s), working collaboratively on assignments and discussion submissions without the expressed approval from the instructor)
  • Plagiarism (representing the work of others as your own without giving appropriate credit to the original author(s))
  • Multiple submissions of the same work in separate courses without the express
    permission of the instructor(s).

Use of ChatGPT (or other AI-based Tools that generate text) is strictly prohibited in this course and will be treated as an act of academic misconduct.

All cases of suspected academic misconduct will be referred to the Arts and Sciences Committee on Academic Conduct and students may receive a zero grade for the assignment in question.

If you are uncertain about what constitutes academic misconduct, please feel free to consult with me or your TAs prior to submitting an assignment.

Accommodations

Your experience in this class is important, and it is the policy and  practice of the University of Washington to create inclusive and accessible learning environments consistent with federal and state law. Disability Resources for Students (DRS) offers resources and coordinates reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities through an interactive process between you, your instructor(s) and DRS. If you have already established accommodations with Disability Resources for Students (DRS), please activate your accommodations via myDRS so we can discuss how they will be implemented in this course. If you have not yet established services through DRS, but have a temporary health condition or permanent disability that requires accommodations (including, but not limited to, mental health, attention-related, learning, vision, hearing, physical or health impacts), you are welcome to contact DRS at 206-543-8924, Mary Gates Hall 011, or uwdrs@uw.edu or disability.uw.edu.

Religious Accommodations

Washington state law requires that UW develop a policy for accommodation of student absences or significant hardship due to reasons of faith or conscience, or  for organized religious activities. The UW’s policy, including more information about how to  request an accommodation, is available at Religious Accommodations Policy (https://registrar.washington.edu/staffandfaculty/religious-accommodations-policy/).  Accommodations must be requested within the first two weeks of this course using the Religious Accommodations Request form (https://registrar.washington.edu/students/religious accommodations-request/).

Course Structure

Here is a breakdown of the course topics and their corresponding questions we will be addressing throughout the quarter: 

Module 1: Introduction to Surveillance (Weeks 1 and 2)

  • How do we define surveillance?
  • What are the potential consequences of surveillance?
  • What are the presumed purposes of surveillance?
  • How do we define privacy?
  • Why is privacy important?
  • What is the relationship between privacy and surveillance?

 

Module 2: Classical Liberalism and the Right to Privacy (Weeks 3-5)

  • What philosophical traditions and beliefs have influenced the development and trajectory of privacy rights in the United States?
  • Who has historically been excluded from the protection of privacy rights and why?
  • How are privacy rights both liberatory and constrained?
  • What was the social, political, and economic environment in which privacy rights were established in the mid-twentieth century?

 

*Mid-Term Exam will focus on Modules 1 and 2*

 

Module 3: The Rise of Mass-Surveillance and the Evolution of Privacy Rights (Weeks 6-8)

  • How has surveillance and privacy rights transformed in the 21st century and under what conditions did these evolutions occur/

  • How have the historical origins of privacy rights shaped the law’s ability to address surveillance in the present-day?

  • How are different people and communities impacted by mass-surveillance and how have the founding principles of privacy rights afforded and/or curtailed these inequitable consequences?

  • What institutions, organizations, and individuals partake in both surveillance and regulatory efforts in the modern-day? 

 

Module 4: Resistance and Reimagining (Weeks 9 and 10)

  • Why and under what conditions have people challenged privacy incursions, both historically and in the present-day?
  • What tactics and narratives have been deployed to challenge surveillance and its consequences?
  • What role could/should the law play in addressing surveillance?
  • What are some alternative approaches to regulating surveillance technologies and who would be directing and implementing such efforts?
  • How can technology be transformed if those historically subjected to surveillance are instead treated as agents?
  • What are the benefits of technology and who gets to enjoy them?
  • How can regulatory efforts balance the potential benefits and consequences of technology?

Course Breakdown

Weekly Breakdown for Course

Date

Topic and Course Materials

Week 1:

3/31 - 4/2

Topic: The United States of Surveillance

Readings:

  • “Surveillance In Seattle.” Seattle Solidarity Budget. https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/surveillance-in-seattle

  • “Mayor Wilson Announces Next Steps on Surveillance Pilot Project.” 2026. Office of the Mayor. https://wilson.seattle.gov/2026/03/19/mayor-wilson-announces-next-steps-on-surveillance-pilot-project/

  • Robins-Early, Nick, and Blake Montgomery. 2026. “Sam Altman Admits OpenAI Can’t Control Pentagon’s Use of AI.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/04/sam-altman-openai-pentagon

  • More Perfect Union. 2025. I Worked At Palantir: The Tech Company Reshaping Reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ95Gmvg_D4

  • Harper, Lauren. 2026. “Trump Wants to Put You in a Massive, Secret Government Database.” The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/government-surveillance-centralized-database-privacy/

Week 2:

4/7 - 4/9

Topic: What is privacy (for)?

Readings:

  • Véliz, Carissa. 2024. “The Value of Privacy.” In The Ethics of Privacy and Surveillance. Oxford University Press. [13 pages]

  • Solove, Daniel J. 2025. “What Is Privacy?” In On Privacy and Technology. Oxford University Press. [5 pages]

  • Hartzog, Woodrow. 2021. “What Is Privacy? That’s the Wrong Question.” The University of Chicago Law Review 88(7): 1677–88. [12 pages]

  • Dash, Anil. 2014. “What Is Public?” The Message. https://medium.com/message/what-is-public-f33b16d780f9 [13 pages]

Week 3:

4/14 - 4/16

Topic: The Theoretical Origins of Privacy Doctrine

Readings: 

  • Warren, Samuel D., and Louis D. Brandeis. 1890. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 4(5): 193–220. [193- top of 197; 208 (3rd paragraph)- 211 (1st paragraph); and 213-220]

  • Glancy, Dorothy J. 1979. “The Invention of the Right to Privacy,” Arizona Law Review 21(1): 1–40. [pages 17-37]

  • Berlin, Isaiah. 2000. “Two Concepts of Liberty” In Reading Political Philosophy. Routledge. [7 pages]

  • Lewis, Thomas. 2025. “Constitutional Right to Privacy.” EBSCO. [5 pages]


Week 4:

4/21 - 4/23

Topic: The Inequitable Foundations of Privacy

Readings:

  • Osucha, Eden. 2009. “The Whiteness of Privacy: Race, Media, Law.” Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 24(1): 67–107. [pages 67-71 (end of paragraph 2); 83-98]

  • Siegel, Reva B. 1996. “‘The Rule of Love’: Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy.” The Yale Law Journal 105(8): 2117–2207. [pages 2154-2161]

  • Reich, Charles A. 1963. “Midnight Welfare Searches and the Social Security Act.” The Yale Law Journal 72(7): 1347–60. [15 pages]

  • Benedict, Michael Les. 1985. “Laissez-Faire and Liberty: A Re-Evaluation of the Meaning and Origins of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism.” Law and History Review 3(2): 293–331. [Section I. pages 293-298]

Note: This week will touch on heavy themes, such as intimate partner and sexual violence.

Week 5:

4/28 - 4/30

Topic: Establishing a Right to Privacy

Readings:

  • “Penumbra.” LII Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/penumbra

  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) [excerpt: 8 pages]

  • Boling, Patricia. 1994. “Privacy as Autonomy vs. Privacy as Familial Attachment: A Conceptual Approach to Right to Privacy Cases.” Policy Studies Review 13(1/2): 91–110. [21 pages]

  • Hirschenbaum, Dana. 2000. “When CRACK Is the Only Choice: The Effect of a Negative Right of Privacy on Drug-Addicted Women Recent Developments.” Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 15(1): 327–37. [12 pages]

  • Copelon, Rhonda. 1990. “Losing the Negative Right of Privacy: Building Sexual and Reproductive Freedom Nation Institute Conference: The Supreme Court and Daily Life: Who Will the Court Protect in the 1990s.” New York University Review of Law & Social Change 18(1): 15–50. [pages 40-50]

  • Legal English Innovation SAS. 2025. Katz v. US: Case Study. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbCjbpVkWsY [5:49 minutes]

Helpful Case Summaries:


  • Griswold v. Connecticut. (1965). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

  • Katz v. United States. (1967). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35

  • Eisenstadt v. Baird. (1972). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-17

  • Roe v. Wade. (1973). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

  • Harris v. McRae. (1980). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-1268

  • Bowers v. Hardwick. (1986). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140

  • Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. (1992). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744

  • Lawrence v. Texas. (2003). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102

Week 6:

5/5 - 5/7

In-Class Mid-Term on May 5th (11:30am - 12:50pm)




Topic: Mass-Surveillance in the 21st Century

Readings:

  • Poitras, Lauren. 2014. Citizenfour. Radius. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRzDsxUOm4M [1h 53m].

  • Pilkington, Ed. 2021. “‘Panic Made Us Vulnerable’: How 9/11 Made the US Surveillance State – and the Americans Who Fought Back.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/surveillance-state-september-11-panic-made-us-vulnerable 

  • “PATRIOT Act.” EPIC - Electronic Privacy Information Center. https://epic.org/issues/surveillance-oversight/patriot-act/

Week 7:

5/12 - 5/14

Topic: Corporate Surveillance

Readings:

  • Gao, Raymond Yang. 2023. “A Battle of the Big Three?—Competing Conceptualizations of Personal Data Shaping Transnational Data Flows.” Chinese Journal of International Law 22(4): 707–87. [pages 713 (Section II.A.) to 718 (1st paragraph)]

  • Spira, Lili Siri. 2025. “How Companies Make Money Tracking You.” TechEquity Collaborative. https://techequity.us/2025/08/05/surveillance-economy/

  • Gilman, Michele Estrin. 2021. “Periods for Profit and the Rise of Menstrual Surveillance.” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 41(1) [14 pages] 

  • Chayka, Kyle. 2025. “Techno-Fascism Comes to America.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/techno-fascism-comes-to-america-elon-musk

Week 8:

5/19 - 5/21

Topic: Evolving Privacy in the Digital Age

Reading:

  • Champagne, Dylan. 2026. “President Trump Targets State AI Regulations.” The Regulatory Review. https://www.theregreview.org/2026/02/26/champagne-president-trump-targets-state-based-ai-regulations/

  • Joh, Elizabeth. 2024. “Dobbs Online: Digital Rights as Abortion Rights.” In Feminist Cyberlaw, eds. Meg Leta Jones and Amanda Levendowski. University of California Press. [5 pages]

  • Ovide, Shira. 2025. “Companies Are Ignoring Your Privacy Demands. No One Is Stopping Them.” The Washington Post: A.11.

  • Supreme Court Rules Police Need a Warrant to Track Cellphones. 2018 https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-rules-police-need-warrant-track-cellphones.

  • Booth, Barbara. 2026. “Online Age-Verification Tools Spread across U.S. for Child Safety, but Adults Are Being Surveilled.” CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/08/social-media-child-safety-internet-ai-surveillance.html

Week 9:

5/26 - 5/28

Topic: Resistance to Surveillance

Readings:

  • Robertson, Stephen, Shane White, Stephen Garton, and Graham White. 2012. “Disorderly Houses: Residences, Privacy, and the Surveillance of Sexuality in 1920s Harlem.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 21(3): 443–66. [pages 443-448]

  • Shepard, Nikita. 2024. “‘The Fight for an End to Intrusions into the Sex Lives of Americans:’ Gay and Lesbian Resistance to Sexual Surveillance and Data Collection, 1945-1972.” In Queer Data Studies, eds. Patrick Keilty, Rebecca Herzig, and Banu Subramaniam. Seattle: University of Washington Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/washington/detail.action?docID=7382765 [pages 52-64]

  • “$64 Billion of Data Center Projects Have Been Blocked or Delayed amid Local Opposition.” Data Center Watch. https://www.datacenterwatch.org/report

  • “Safe or Just Surveilled?: Tawana Petty on the Fight Against Facial Recognition Surveillance.” 2020. Logic(s) Magazine. https://logicmag.io/security/safe-or-just-surveilled-tawana-petty-on-facial-recognition/

Week 10:

6/2 - 6/4

Topic: Reimagining Privacy

Readings:

Cifor, M., Garcia, P., Cowan, T.L., Rault, J., Sutherland, T., Chan, A., Rode, J., Hoffmann, A.L., Salehi, N., Nakamura, L. (2019). Feminist Data Manifest-No. https://www.manifestno.com/home
Lee, Una, and Dan Toliver. (2021). “The Consentful Tech Project.” Allied Media Projects. https://www.consentfultech.io/.
Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group. (2019). “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. GIDA-global.org [5 pages]
  • Ems, Lindsay. 2022. “Happiest in the Margins: Amish Approaches to Participation in High-Tech Capitalism.” In Virtually Amish: Preserving Community at the Internet’s Margins. The MIT Press. [14 pages]

 

Department Requirements Met:
American Politics Field
GE Requirements Met:
Social Sciences (SSc)
Credits:
5.0
Status:
Active
Last updated:
April 23, 2026 - 3:23 pm