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

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

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

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.

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.

Tag: Trafficking

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