The collection of personal data has increased and developed side-to-side with the digitalization of society. It has been embedded in digital technologies where the collection and handling of personal data have become a great interest for private and public actors. Previous quantitative studies show a widespread concern with data collection among individuals. Based on 16 semi-structured interviews, this study investigates individuals’ experiences with governmental data collection. The sample of this study consists of individuals who belong to the generation of late millennials. This study investigates how late millennials are experiencing data collection from domestic authorities using David Lyon’s theoretical framework of surveillance imaginaries and surveillance practices. Online privacy literacy is added as a third component to the framework which together with imaginaries and practices form how individuals experience data collection. The results show that the respondents’ imaginaries are built on compliance and trust with data collection from Swedish authorities. The respondents imagine this data collection as an exchange, as public good, as securitization and as harmless. The identified practices displayed how the abstract nature of data collection together with the trust for Swedish authorities created a kind of non-response towards data collection from Swedish authorities. The results also show how the imaginary of trust reduced the need for knowledge. The respondents lack an understanding of how data collection is performed, but it did not influence their imaginaries and practices. This study also concludes how trust for the surveillor leads to compliance with data collection for the surveilled. How perceived trust for the surveillor can reduce an individual’s privacy concerns which influence surveillance imaginaries and practices. This study thus demonstrates the interplay between imaginaries, practices and knowledge in the shaping of individual experience of data collection from domestic authorities.

Freedom and safety are two ideals that American citizens value greatly; however, the balance between privacy and security determines whether or not both can be achieved in a reasonable manner. Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive; however, they tend to exhibit an inverse correlation with regards to maintaining individual liberties. Security and privacy are highly beneficial, but when one is given too much weight, the other most often suffers. When the United States citizens are given too much privacy through regulations, the citizens risk their well-being by not allowing the government the ability to prevent dangerous activities being done by criminals. Citizens are unable to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats of terrorism that affect large amounts of people such as bombings in public settings; however, the federal government can help to prevent such attacks in public settings through surveillance of public areas and monitoring of internet and intracellular communications. When the United States federal government is given too much discretion in security powers through legislation, citizens are at risk of losing their civil rights granted in the Bill of Rights and in Supreme Court cases. The United States of America has had a dangerous imbalance of power in favor of national security since the adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, and the imbalance has continued to the present even after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015. This thesis will be a comparative analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. This thesis will show what specific powers are granted through provisions of the acts, whether or not the provisions are unconstitutional, how the privacy and security of American citizens will change due to the provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act, and suggestions for how the United States federal government can continue to tilt the balance between security and liberty to ensure more protection for civil liberties and a decrease in national security powers. The suggestions will include three options for gaining the protection of civil liberties and the elimination of certain national security powers and the options are through Supreme Court cases on national security laws pertaining to individual cases or states, Congress passing concurring minor bills with the proposed plan to fully repeal granted national security powers without disturbing congressional alliances on other measures, and Congress passing a single act called the State Surveillance Repeal Act in order to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act provisions that would still be in effect after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act.