It's Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law

Category: Family Law and Immigration

  • Inventing Ana: How Streaming Algorithms Enable Psychological Grooming and Threaten the Rights of Children

    Inventing Ana: How Streaming Algorithms Enable Psychological Grooming and Threaten the Rights of Children

    By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.

    Published on July 15, 2015. Revised on July 16, 2015.

    Children’s Rights, Behavioral Profiling, and the Law

    “What happens when an algorithm learns your trauma before you speak it aloud?”

    “And what if it uses that knowledge—not to heal—but to shape, manipulate, harass, or punish you?”

    Quote: Chat GPT

    In 2024, the ACLU filed a harrowing civil rights complaint detailing the abuse of a Spanish-speaking migrant mother—pseudonymously referred to as Ana—held in solitary confinement for weeks at a Florida ICE detention facility. A survivor of trafficking and domestic violence, Ana’s story reveals not only systemic failures in our immigration system, but also how trauma can be misunderstood, exploited, or even digitally profiled by the very systems that surround us in our private lives.

    Now consider another Ana—the fictional “Anna Delvey” of Netflix’s Inventing Anna—a dramatized grifter portrayed as cunning, glamorous, and psychologically manipulative. What unites these two women isn’t criminality or deception—it’s the machinery behind them: psychological manipulation, profiling, and the dangerous power of misread narratives.

    In this article, we explore how streaming platforms like Netflix, when combined with automated profiling tools used by law enforcement or government agencies, can function as vehicles for psychological grooming, behavioral targeting, and even family separation.

    We ask: what does your “feed” say about you? And how might these digital breadcrumbs be used—especially against women and children in moments of legal, emotional, or immigration vulnerability?

    Inventing Ana: Streaming, Psychological Manipulation, and Storytelling as a Weapon

    Netflix’s Inventing Anna is more than a TV drama—it is an algorithmically optimized vehicle designed to hold attention, provoke emotional reaction, and amplify morally ambiguous narratives. But for viewers like Ana—individuals navigating real trauma—these dramatizations can blur into indoctrination.

    Netflix’s recommendation engine uses machine learning (ML) to:

    Track emotional patterns through binge behavior.

    Infer psychological states (e.g., depression, isolation).

    Build predictive profiles for personalized content delivery.

    This becomes especially troubling when:

    Trauma survivors, minors, migrants or other vulnerable individuals rely on streaming platforms as emotional lifelines. The content reinforces distress, manipulates emotional states, or echoes lived abuse. Law enforcement or third parties gain access to these profiles via subpoenas, data brokers, or government contracts.

    What may begin as entertainment, ends in exposure and objectification.

    Profiling Children, Grooming, and Vulnerability

    Children are particularly susceptible to algorithmic manipulation.

    Recommendation loops can push violent, sexualized, or identity-influencing content. COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) only protects children under 13, with limited enforcement. Netflix, while not designed for children without explicit parental controls, collects usage data even under child profiles.

    Psychological grooming—typically understood in the context of abusers gaining a child’s trust—can now be digitized.

    Platforms “learn” a child’s fears, interests, and emotional triggers. Recommendations can nudge behavior over time—toward specific identities, beliefs, or emotional responses. In immigration or custody proceedings, this data can become evidence of “instability,” “obsession,” “unfitness” or “unsuitability,” especially for vulnerable or non-English-speaking parents.

    Legal Landscape: The Telecommunications and Streaming Privacy Gap

    Despite the profound implications, federal and state laws have not kept pace:

    Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) prohibits unauthorized disclosure of viewing history, but was drafted in 1988—long before algorithmic profiling or streaming dominance.

    California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) provide stronger consumer control, allowing Californians to access, delete, or limit the use of their viewing data.

    Cable Communications Act and Telecommunications Act do not fully cover streaming services operating over the internet.

    Yet, these gaps matter. For Ana—or any immigrant or vulnerable mother—watching trauma-themed content on Netflix during a custody proceeding might silently build a profile that shapes how she is treated, judged, or even punished.

    The next article we will try to explore:

    How attorneys can protect clients’ digital identities in family and immigration proceedings.

    A sample feed profile for “Ana”—as seen by Netflix.

    Practical tools to request, review, or delete streaming data under California law.

    Proposed reforms to the VPPA and CCPA that reflect the emerging dangers of algorithmic profiling.

    If you need assistance, you should always attempt to engage with law enforcement and/or qualified legal counsel. I would strongly recommend that you learn how to report any unusual activity in a meaningful and credible way with any social media platform that you choose to engage with when choosing an online community.

    Always remember that an online community is much like the community outside your front door. There may be consequences not only to your behavior but also as to any accusations you make. Engaging with counsel, counselors, and/or an advocate may be necessary.

    Important Phone Numbers

    National Center for Missing & Exploited Children – 1-800-843-5678.

    The National Human Trafficking Hotline – 1-888-373-7888.

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security – 1-866-347-2423.

    SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE

    © 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.

    Neural Privacy and Cognitive Liberty

    The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (a/k/a Sally Vazquez and a/k/a Sally Castellanos). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:

    United States Law

    Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation;

    U.S. Constitution

    First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship; 

    Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure; 

    Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection; 

    Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights; 

    California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy; 

    California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA); 

    Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices; 

    Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control; 

    Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.

    International Law

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19; 

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26; 

    Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation; 

    General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data; 

    UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation; 

    CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.

    CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation

    CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.

    While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:

    Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights; Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.

    Application to Technology

    Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:

    Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.

    CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.

    FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE

    Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):

    Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.

    ANTHROPIC LITIGATION AND RESTRICTIONS

    In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:

    The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.

    Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:

    Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.

    PROHIBITED USES

    The following uses are expressly prohibited:

    Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation; 

    Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction; 

    Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting; 

    Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations; 

    Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.

    CEASE AND DESIST

    You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:

    All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.

    Violations may result in:

    Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.

    AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS

    Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:

    The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.

    No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights reserved.

    Disclaimer

    The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.

    This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation. 

    About the Author

    Sally Castellanos is a California attorney and the Author of It’s Personal and Perspectives, a legal blog exploring innovation, technology, and global privacy through the lens of law, ethics, and civil society.

  • A Fictional Feed, Algorithmic Manipulation and What Netflix Might “See” in Ana

    By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.

    Published on July 15, 2025. Revised on July 16, 2025.

    This continues my series of articles discussing fictional “Ana,”inspired by real events surrounding the detention of a real life Ana described in court documents found on the ACLU’s website. It is another disturbing account of a woman horribly abused. This time it’s in a Florida detention facility.

    Let’s imagine Ana—exhausted, isolated, awaiting legal clarity—logs into her Netflix account. Her recommended queue might include:

    Maid — A drama about a domestic violence survivor struggling through the U.S. welfare system.

    Unbelievable — A miniseries dramatizing the failures of institutions to believe female survivors of trauma.

    Inventing Anna — A series glamorizing manipulation, identity fraud, and psychological deception.

    American Horror Story — Often triggering content, including violence, sexual trauma, and psychological experimentation.

    From an algorithm’s perspective, these recommendations aren’t malicious—they’re the result of mathematical optimization to keep a user engaged. But to a government agent, custody evaluator, or court official with access to Ana’s digital record, a binge history of trauma-driven dramas might be framed as instability, paranoia, or obsession with abuse—especially in cases where the viewer is a non-English-speaking immigrant or trauma survivor.

    Such profiling—consciously or not—can contribute to negative credibility assumptions, reinforce racialized or gendered bias, or cast aspersions on parental fitness.

    Children, Family Courts, and Algorithmic Misuse

    In California family law proceedings, streaming activity is rarely introduced as formal evidence. But we are entering a legal era where:

    Parenting apps, screen time reports, and digital behavior logs are used in custody disputes. A child’s media consumption may be interpreted by evaluators, social workers, or opposing counsel as reflecting the emotional tone of the home.

    Algorithmic “learning” of a child’s fears or emotional triggers could be exploited by bad actors, school districts, or even tech platforms.

    This is especially relevant in communities where language access is limited, trust in institutions is low, and immigration status creates heightened risk of surveillance, psychological manipulation or profiling, automated profiling, or family separation.

    Imagine a child’s profile is linked to a parent’s adult account. Autoplay delivers distressing content. Or worse—recommendations start nudging the child toward gender identity exploration, violence normalization, or grooming-adjacent narratives.

    In a digital realm of very smart people who work hard each day on increasing engagement, these executives are learning that the line between algorithmic suggestion and psychological manipulation blurs just as quickly as breaking things to maximize profit.

    Legal Tools and Advocacy: What Can Be Done?

    ✅ California Protections

    CCPA & CPRA give Californians the right to:

    Access: Request a full report of data collected by platforms like Netflix.

    Delete: Demand erasure of stored viewing and recommendation history.

    Limit: Opt out of behavioral profiling or sharing with third parties.

    Family law and immigration attorneys can use these rights strategically—to:

    Shield trauma survivors from harmful digital mischaracterization.

    File protective orders or requests to suppress digital evidence gathered without consent.

    Train clients on account segmentation, parental controls, and data minimization.

    📺 VPPA (Video Privacy Protection Act)

    While historic, the VPPA prohibits disclosure of personally identifiable viewing information. Attorneys should consider civil remedies when streaming data is unlawfully disclosed or repurposed during custody battles or immigration proceedings. Advocacy is urgently needed to modernize the statute for the streaming era.

    📡 Gaps in Federal Law

    The Telecommunications Act and Cable Communications Act are relics in a post-cable world. Platforms operating over broadband fall outside traditional regulatory regimes, leaving consumers and children exposed. Legislative reform must recognize the algorithm as both a marketing tool and a potential weapon of psychological coercion.

    For Attorneys: A Preventive Guide

    🔐 Digital Hygiene for Clients

    Separate profiles for parents and children.

    Turn off autoplay and algorithmic recommendations where possible.

    Download your data—review what’s been collected.

    Audit device history—many smart TVs and phones retain app logs.

    📄 Legal Language to Include

    “Petitioner reserves the right to challenge any digital media use or recommendation pattern as irrelevant, algorithmically driven, and not reflective of mental state, fitness, or parenting capacity.”

    “Streaming data is protected under California Civil Code § 1799.3 and the Video Privacy Protection Act, and may not be introduced or used in legal proceedings absent proper notice and consent.”

    Toward Reform: What Inventing Ana Teaches Us

    The lesson of Inventing Anna was never just about deception. It was about the power of narrative, the force of charisma, and how society rewards performance over truth.

    The lesson of Ana, the detained migrant mother, is more urgent: our institutions—from immigration courts to family law—routinely fail to recognize trauma, cultural difference, and the invisible harms of digital systems.

    When entertainment feeds become evidence, and when algorithms groom instead of protect, we must rethink what privacy means—especially for women and children. Especially for Ana.

    About the Author

    California Attorney and Shareholder at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, Sally Castellanos writes at the intersection of law, children’s rights, digital technology, and family justice.

    SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE

    © 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.

    Neural Privacy and Cognitive Liberty

    The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (a/k/a Sally Vazquez and a/k/a Sally Castellanos). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:

    United States Law

    Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation;

    U.S. Constitution

    First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship; 

    Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure; 

    Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection; 

    Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights; 

    California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy; 

    California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA); 

    Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices; 

    Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control; 

    Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.

    International Law

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19; 

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26; 

    Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation; 

    General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data; 

    UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation; 

    CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.

    CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation

    CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.

    While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:

    Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights;

    Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.

    Application to Technology

    Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:

    Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.

    CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.

    FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE

    Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):

    Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.

    ANTHROPIC LITIGATION AND RESTRICTIONS

    In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:

    The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.

    Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:

    Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.

    PROHIBITED USES

    The following uses are expressly prohibited:

    Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation; 

    Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction; 

    Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting; 

    Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations; 

    Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.

    CEASE AND DESIST

    You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:

    All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.

    Violations may result in:

    Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.

    AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS

    Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:

    The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.

    No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights reserved.

    Disclaimer

    The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.

    This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation. 

    California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.

  • Jurisdiction in Crisis: When Custody Allegations Trigger Immigration Detention and Civil Rights Abuse

    By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.

    Published on July 15, 2025. Revised July 16, 2025.

    This post is inspired by the ACLU’s Ana story. If you would like to learn more about Ana, I invite you to visit my earlier post published today on It’s Personal. For additional insight, please visit Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection Law, where I discuss emerging technologies that may provide insight for family law and immigration practitioners.

    Please visit the ACLU online and learn more about all of the important stories impacting immigrants across the United States.

    I have changed some important details to reflect California law. Please be sure to consult a qualified immigration or family law attorney if you need assistance.

    Thank you for taking the time to learn about Ana.

    Introduction

    What begins as a family law dispute quickly spirals into a multi-systemic threat—especially for immigrant parents navigating high-conflict custody, relocation, and criminal allegations. In today’s climate of aggressive immigration enforcement, this convergence of state custody law, federal criminal scrutiny, and civil rights breakdown has never been more dangerous.

    Ana’s Story: A Mother’s Flight for Safety, and the System That Turns Against Her

    Ana, a Honduran national and mother of a U.S. citizen child, who resides in California and relocates to New York.

    Ana is embroiled in a domestic violence-fueled custody battle that implicates jurisdiction in two states.

    Resolving the jurisdiction issues means that judges from both states must determine which state has jurisdiction over the custody matter. Having judicial authority to determine initial custody orders will set the stage for any parent who is seeking to either maintain residency in California, or to seek residency in a new state. It gets even more complicated in the context of an international move away case. Ana’s goal would have been to establish initial custody orders in New York.

    Given the fact that Ana is now in federal detention in New York, Ana’s concerns now involve an extremely serious immigration issue that invariably impacts her family law case and ultimately the custody of her child.

    Ana faced allegations of emotional instability and coercive control from her ex-partner, who filed an emergency motion under California Penal Code § 278.5, there are obvious allegations involving parental kidnapping. Ana may have believed that she had the right to take her child to New York. From a judge’s point of view, removal is serious because it does involve allegations of parental kidnapping. It’s important to understand that in the Florida case, Ana simply took her child for Ice Cream. Unfortunately, Ana may have violated orders that require supervised visitations.

    In both scenarios, Ana’s decision triggers criminal proceedings when the other parent contacts law enforcement. It’s that simple and extremely dangerous. While we would all like to believe parents (and family members or other interested parties) are operating with clean hands, that is usually not the case.

    This signals the importance of trauma informed judicial training programs across the nation to recognize the subtleties in behavior.

    Sadly, once Ana is arrested and detained she is placed in a situation that could escalate into something far worse. You must understand that if Ana is removed from the country without due process, Ana’s problems have turned into a nightmare.

    So parents (and others) must recognize the seriousness of mere accusations. Unfortunately, what follows is worse than anticipated. Ana is arrested, transferred into ICE custody, and she is detained at a facility, where she purportedly endures sexual abuse, solitary confinement, denial of counsel, medical neglect, and retaliation. Ana is cut off from her child and barred from participating in custody proceedings, while her mental and physical health deteriorates.

    What happens inside of a federal detention facility in the United States?

    What would happen if Ana is removed from the United States?

    How Jurisdiction Collapsed: UCCJEA and the Home State Crisis

    We’ve discussed that Ana’s story is inspired from a published story from the ACLU. How many more Ana’s are out there?

    This is really important for the Family Law bar to consider throughout the nation as the immigration crisis continues.

    Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), California maintains exclusive jurisdiction over Ana’s custody matter. The purpose of the UCCJEA is to prevent “forum shopping” and ensure that custody disputes are resolved in the child’s home state—defined as the state where the child lived for the six months prior to the proceeding.

    But in Ana’s case, her problems become much more complicated than the jurisdictional hearing that normally takes place and may further implicate parental kidnapping statutes. Ana’s story has now turned into a criminal matter and could potentially open the door for ICE. Her ex-partner filed conflicting petitions in New York, while law enforcement in California treated her movement as custodial interference. Without coordination between states—or recognition of the trauma she was fleeing—Ana’s legal protections under UCCJEA crumble. We are also dealing with a far worse situation for Ana who is in detention.

    Criminalization and Deportation: When Family Law Triggers Federal Enforcement

    California’s § 278.5 criminal custodial interference statute is often invoked when a parent violates a custody order. But for non-citizen parents, even a minor accusation can escalate into immigration consequences.

    ✅ Chat Practice Pointer: After a local arrest, ICE may issue a detainer—also known as a “civil immigration hold request”—which asks local law enforcement to continue custody beyond the scheduled release date to allow federal agents to assume control. Please note that our fact pattern discusses a removal to New York from California.

    Source: ChatGPT

    In Ana’s case, that transfer resulted in her being placed into ICE custody, despite a pending family law case.

    What Happened at Baker: A Civil Rights Catastrophe

    According to a civil rights complaint submitted by the ACLU of Florida and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Ana was subjected to multiple violations of the National Detention Standards (2019) and U.S. constitutional protections:

    Solitary confinement for a language misunderstanding. Physical restraint while partially undressed and mocked by officers. Denied access to her family law attorney and court hearings. The alleged falsification of medical records and retaliatory conditions. Obstruction of access to her custody file and legal documents. So you can see some of the potential risks to federal detention when there is a pending custody matter.

    Ana’s detention became a case study in how immigration enforcement mechanisms—especially when outsourced to private or county facilities—can override due process and expose vulnerable women to institutional abuse.

    The Broader Political Context: July 2025 – Deportation Escalation

    As of July 15, 2025, the Trump administration has formally announced plans to accelerate the deportation of immigrants, including those with pending protections.

    According to Democracy Now!, the administration is moving forward with transfers to third countries—without full judicial review or due process. These policies raise an urgent warning for family law and immigration attorneys:

    “The infrastructure is in place to expedite detention, restrict counsel access, and process removals before protective proceedings are complete—including family court hearings.”

    Quote: ChatGPT

    Ana’s experience foreshadows exactly what civil liberties groups are now sounding the alarm about: immigration enforcement as a tool of retaliation, silence, and systemic isolation.

    Chat Recommendations for Family Law Attorneys:

    Of course, if you disagree with my chat, you do have a right to your opinion but just remember to express that opinion in a respectful and constructive manner—especially in the digital space.

    Please feel free to contact me to provide constructive feedback that would benefit Ana or those like her. I will do my best to update that information.

    Assert UCCJEA home state jurisdiction immediately, especially in relocation cases.

    Challenge § 278.5 filings that are retaliatory or procedurally defective.

    Prepare declarations and motions to prevent ICE interference in family court custody orders.

    Demand trauma-informed custody evaluations to counteract false mental health narratives.

    Chat suggestions for Immigration Attorneys:

    Investigate whether custody allegations are driving ICE interest.

    File to stay removals where constitutional and parental rights are at risk.

    Invoke ICE Directive 11064.3 (July 2022), also known as the Parental Interest Directive, which mandates that detained parents be allowed to participate in custody proceedings.

    Due Process Must Be Respected

    Ana’s case is not merely tragic—it is instructive. It shows how quickly family law can become criminal law, and how that can lead to immigration enforcement without meaningful judicial review.

    The courts are meant to prioritize the best interest of the child, yet without access to hearings, legal representation, or trauma-informed review, parents are being removed from the equation entirely. Please also consider that parents are also being held to account for their children’s behavior.

    Attorneys must work across practice areas—and across jurisdictions—to ensure that parents like Ana are not lost to bureaucratic indifference or something far worse—political expedience.

    Legal References

    California Penal Code § 278.5

    Custodial interference, which is not expressly defined in California Family Code § 3020, is addressed in Penal Code Section 278.5, which criminalizes the act of taking, enticing, keeping, withholding or concealing a child with the intent to deprive a lawful custodian of their right to custody or visitation.

    California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.

    SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE

    © 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.

    Neural Privacy and Cognitive Liberty

    The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (aka Sally Vazquez). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:

    United States Law

    Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation; 

    U.S. Constitution

    First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship; 

    Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure; 

    Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection; 

    Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights; 

    California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy; 

    California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA); 

    Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices; 

    Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control; 

    Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.

    International Law

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19; 

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26; 

    Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation; 

    General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data; 

    UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation; 

    CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.

    CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation

    CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.

    While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:

    Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights; Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.

    Application to Technology

    Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:

    Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.

    CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.

    FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE

    Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):

    Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.

    ANTHROPIC LITIGATION AND RESTRICTIONS

    In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:

    The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.

    Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:

    Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.

    PROHIBITED USES

    The following uses are expressly prohibited:

    Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation; 

    Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction; 

    Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting; 

    Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations; 

    Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.

    CEASE AND DESIST

    You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:

    All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.

    Violations may result in:

    Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.

    AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS

    Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:

    The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.

    No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights are reserved.

    Disclaimer

    The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.

    This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

    For inquiries regarding, “It’s Personal” and “Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection,” contact Attorney and Shareholder Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Castellanos & Associates, APLC, 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Pasadena, CA 91101. Telephone: (805) 732-2396.

  • When Family Law and Immigration Collide: Ana’s Story and the Criminalization of Motherhood

    When Family Law and Immigration Collide: Ana’s Story and the Criminalization of Motherhood

    By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos

    Published on July 15, 2025. Revised on September 23, 2025.

    What happens when a moment of maternal care becomes a criminal act? For Ana, an immigrant mother in Florida and survivor of domestic violence, taking her U.S. citizen son out for ice cream—outside the court’s supervised visitation schedule—resulted in her prosecution, separation from her child, and eventual detention by federal immigration authorities.

    Ana’s story is the subject of a powerful case study published by the ACLU of Florida, which documents how Florida’s family and criminal legal systems intersect with federal immigration enforcement to disproportionately punish immigrant women and mothers of color. Charged under Florida Statutes § 787.03 for Interference with Custody, Ana’s brief unsupervised outing with her son triggered a cascade of punitive actions, including solitary confinement and prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    The case illustrates how local courts and ICE collaborate in ways that can override a parent’s best intentions, escalate family disputes into criminal matters, and ignore the trauma histories of survivors. As the ACLU explains, Ana’s experience is not an isolated incident—it reflects a broader national pattern:

    “The criminalization of immigrant parents—particularly mothers—results in unjust prosecutions, long-term separation from children, and due process violations that undermine the integrity of both family and immigration systems.”

    — ACLU of Florida, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Report

    The report raises urgent legal and human rights questions such as:

    Are immigrant parents being punished for trying to maintain a bond with their children?

    What safeguards exist when custody orders intersect with criminal statutes and immigration enforcement?

    How can legal systems account for trauma, survival, and cultural context in family law proceedings?

    Please visit the ACLU website to learn more about Ana’s story.

    ACLU of Florida, “Ana’s Story: When Family Law and Immigration Enforcement Collide” (2024), available at:

    👉 https://www.aclufl.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/anas_crcl_final_version.pdf

    This case and others demands not only empathy but legal reform. Custody disputes should not be criminalized—especially not when immigrant families are already navigating systems stacked against them.

    I would like to thank the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (Florida) and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.

    Legal Disclaimer

    This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific legal matter, please consult a qualified attorney.

    California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.

    SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE

    © 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.

    Neural Privacy and Cognitive Liberty

    The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (a/k/a Sally Vazquez and Sally Castellanos).

    Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:

    United States Law

    Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction or simulation; 

    U.S. Constitution

    First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship; 

    Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure; 

    Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection; 

    Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights; 

    California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy; 

    California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA); 

    Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices; 

    Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control; 

    Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.

    International Law

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19; 

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26; 

    Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation; 

    General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data; 

    UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation; 

    CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.

    CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation

    CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.

    While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:

    Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights;

    Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.

    Application to Technology

    Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:

    Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.

    CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.

    FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE

    Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):

    Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.

    ANTHROPIC LITIGATION AND RESTRICTIONS

    In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:

    The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.

    Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:

    Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.

    PROHIBITED USES

    The following uses are expressly prohibited:

    Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation; 

    Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction; 

    Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting; 

    Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations; 

    Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.

    CEASE AND DESIST

    You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:

    All unauthorized use, simulation, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.

    Violations may result in:

    Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.

    AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS

    Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:

    The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.

    No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights are reserved.

    Disclaimer

    The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.

    This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation.