Has User “Security” Become User Surveillance and Control?

What if a digital service promoted an upgrade or a product that wasn’t useful to you, and because you didn’t buy it, that service infiltrated your system, locked your accounts, and stole your data? Some might dismiss this as paranoia, but consider how many tech companies already force users into mandatory software updates that serve the company’s interests rather than the consumer’s. These updates consume storage space, slow devices, and create artificial obsolescence—forcing users to buy more space or entirely new devices just to maintain basic functionality. This practice has been normalized for billions, so ask this:

What if that same model of coercion evolved into something more sinister?

What if tech companies, armed with the power to control user access, began systematically locking people out of their own accounts based on arbitrary triggers—such as refusing to purchase a new service, mistakenly typing a flagged word, or simply not aligning with the priorities of advertisers and investors? The world saw a glimpse of this during the suppression of TikTok’s #BlackGirlFollowTrain, where an algorithm was allegedly used to suppress visibility based on identity rather than conduct.

Now take this further: What if an employee inside a tech company had business dealings with bad actors and deliberately sabotaged a user’s access, wiping out their data without any avenue for recourse? And what if, in every instance, the company could absolve itself of responsibility, hiding behind the phrase “it’s just the algorithm”—a phrase that grants them full protection from consequences while users are left powerless?

These scenarios are no longer hypothetical. Users are reporting these issues in real time. The question is: will society address these warning signs before access to digital communication, financial services, and essential information is repossessed by corporate gatekeepers? Or will action only come when it’s too late?

The Impossible Verification Loop

For years, Google has presented itself as a provider of secure and reliable services, offering users a seamless way to store emails, documents, and personal data. However, a growing number of individuals have experienced a troubling reality—being inexplicably locked out of their accounts, despite using correct login credentials and established recovery methods.

This issue is not the result of user error or external hacking attempts. It is an internal process, controlled by Google itself, which prevents legitimate users from accessing their own data under the guise of “suspicious activity.” The real question is not just why accounts are being locked, but how Google is classifying, storing, and flagging user data in ways that trigger unjustified security restrictions.

The Impossible Verification Loop

Google’s verification process often traps users in an inescapable loop. A correct password is entered, but Google claims additional verification is required. The system then prompts the user to scan a QR code, re-enter the password, and go through a series of steps—only to ultimately declare that there is “not enough information” to verify identity.

Many users report that even when using the same trusted devices, IP addresses, and phone numbers they have had for years, Google still locks them out. Recovery options—such as phone numbers and secondary email addresses—are bypassed entirely. Instead, the system forces users into a dead-end process that offers no real solution.

The Real Issue: Data Classification and Algorithmic Control

The fundamental issue is not just account security but how Google classifies and stores user data. The algorithm does not randomly flag accounts; rather, it reacts to how Google has internally categorized and labeled a user’s data. When an account is improperly classified, the system automatically locks it, preventing access without explanation or human oversight.

This raises critical concerns:

• Who decides what is deemed “suspicious”?

• What classification criteria determine whether an account is flagged for additional security measures?

• How are users able to challenge these classifications if they are incorrect?

If an algorithm incorrectly categorizes an account, the user is left with no recourse. The process is not about preventing actual cyber threats but about controlling who is granted access to their own data based on opaque internal classifications.

Big Tech’s Shift from Security to Control

Technology companies frequently claim that account restrictions are purely algorithmic and neutral, but this assertion ignores the fact that algorithms do not operate independently—they are designed, programmed, and implemented with intent. The claim that “it’s just an algorithm” is no different from saying “a machine made the decision.” In reality, humans build the systems that decide who gets locked out, and their decisions shape digital access.

The ability to restrict access to accounts and data at will is not just a security measure—it is a form of control. The consequences extend beyond inconvenience. Email accounts today are linked to financial institutions, medical records, and business communications. Locking users out without due process effectively cuts them off from essential resources, creating a form of digital isolation with no accountability.

Algorithmic Discrimination and Systemic Bias

This growing issue reveals a deeper problem: algorithmic discrimination. If certain accounts are disproportionately flagged and restricted, then access to digital services is no longer neutral—it is controlled by unseen, undisclosed biases.

In a legal setting, an individual cannot be indefinitely punished without due process. Yet, major tech companies are able to do exactly this by implementing flawed classification models that label accounts as “suspicious” without justification or transparency.

A System Designed for Exploitation

Google’s lack of customer support further exacerbates the issue. Users are left without any direct means to resolve access issues because the company claims to have no ability to assist with individual accounts. A trillion-dollar corporation that has embedded itself into nearly every aspect of modern digital life now claims it has no oversight over its own security systems.

This is not a glitch. It is a deliberate system of monetized restriction. By controlling access to essential digital tools and storage, companies can exert control over users while avoiding legal liability. This also reveals a troubling shift—surveillance, not service, is the real business model.

The Bigger Picture: Surveillance as a Business Model

At its core, Google’s system is not failing—it is functioning exactly as designed. The widespread classification, storage, and restriction of user data is not an accident but a strategic approach to data monetization and behavioral control.

The same corporations that profit from personal data collection are also the ones deciding who is granted access to their own information. This contradiction highlights a shift in priorities: security measures are not designed to protect users but to consolidate control over the digital space.

The Need for Oversight and Accountability

The unchecked power of tech companies over user access raises urgent questions about the future of digital rights. If platforms can dictate who has access to their own data, then the concept of digital ownership no longer exists. Without transparency, oversight, and a method for users to challenge wrongful classifications, this issue will only continue to escalate.

In a world where nearly every aspect of life depends on digital access, no corporation should have the power to unilaterally restrict individuals from their own information. Security should not be a tool for control, and algorithmic classification should not determine who is allowed to participate in the digital world.