By Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.
Published on June 27, 2026 at approximately 5:58 pm.
This morning I would like you to remember that the allegations I am making include cameras placed on me in private spaces. At the very least — there are those acting with impunity who believe it’s okay to wire a home (or offices of physicians and other service providers) and vehicles for sound to exploit its occupants.
If you think I am going to back down from the EVIL that you are doing inside of my home and elsewhere — you messed with the wrong woman, mother, daughter and attorney.
As an attorney, my professional responsibility is grounded in the Constitution, the rule of law, and the protection of human dignity. Throughout my career, I have advocated for the protection of privacy, civil liberties, due process, equal protection, medical autonomy, and the responsible development and use of technology.
I am an IVF mother—whether you like it or not. It’s called reproductive autonomy—it was decided long ago that politics should not be inside of a home or doctor’s office—much less provide the means for abusing anyone physically. This is especially true if you disagree with an individual’s political party, family or heritage. Using information —sensitive or otherwise—as a means of coercion, or to gerrymander or sway elections, is criminal behavior. It is also morally reprehensible.
What that means is that even though I publicly disclosed that I am an IVF mother to give hope to other parents, that information should never give “license” to exploit me. Exploit is a term I use with kindness—because you have already been given far too much leniency.
As foolish as this may sound, I would say that being nuyorican (look it up) should not be a reason to disqualify an individual from raising a family and earning a living in the west.
Over the past several years, I have publicly expressed concerns regarding experiences that have caused me significant physical, emotional, professional, and economic harm.
My concerns include reporting physical injuries, coordinated harassment, political doxxing, interference with my legal practice, reputational injury, discrimination, intimidation, and unauthorized intrusions involving private property, electronic devices, vehicles, places of business, and other locations within several communities and states.
I have chosen to address these issues publicly because I believe they raise broader questions affecting every member of our American society and culture today—not simply one individual.
The digital age has fundamentally altered the nature of privacy in America. Technology permits the collection, aggregation, analysis, and dissemination of enormous quantities of information concerning virtually every aspect of an individual’s life.
During the immigration crisis in America—I believe it’s invaluable to share my experiences with all of you. Dare I speak for other attorneys around the world—who not unlike journalists—become unlikely targets for their advocacy.
Information is currency. It is a source of power around the world used for exploitation. Imagine the damage caused to leadership—who are not the modicums of society they portray themselves to be—when criminals and others use information to exploit them.
What becomes of us all? If you want perfection—buy a robot and talk to that for the rest of your lives. Leadership is already hard at work on that concept.
Technology—when used responsibly, technology advances innovation, public safety, medicine, and education. When misused, it can become an instrument of intimidation, discrimination, reputational destruction, economic harm, and leads to the erosion of individual liberty. That’s the space I explore.
If human rights and fundamental freedoms and dignity makes you feel uncomfortable—I can’t help you very much. You see it’s terribly personal to me when you use word play, local businesses, industry and human beings—especially a Puerto Rican woman from Simi Valley, California—to advance a racist and discriminatory agenda in any form.
I believe that every person possesses an inherent dignity that must remain protected regardless of political affiliation, profession, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, viewpoint, or social status.
That principle extends to the protection of confidential relationships.
The attorney-client relationship.
The physician-patient relationship.
The psychotherapist-patient relationship.
The clergy-penitent relationship.
The fiduciary relationships that exist between professionals and those who entrust them with their most confidential affairs. Unfortunately, there are those among us who fail to understand these sacred relationships.
Fiduciary relationships are foundational to a free and democratic society because they permit individuals to seek legal advice, obtain medical care, receive counseling, practice their faith, and conduct business without fear that their most private information will be exploited. The sad truth is that if individuals and organizations fail to respect sacred family relationships—how will they ever learn to respect our communities—especially as to fiduciary relationships. Quite a time we are living in America.
The unauthorized acquisition, manipulation, exploitation, or dissemination of confidential professional, medical and other sensitive information has consequences far beyond the individual whose information is affected. It may undermine public confidence in law firms, medical providers, hospitals, healthcare professionals, businesses, journalists, educational institutions, and governmental institutions that depend upon public trust.
Particularly troubling is the increasing ability of technology to collect, infer, or exploit highly sensitive information concerning an individual’s physical health, mental health, protected health information, financial affairs, family relationships, intimate personal life, reproductive decisions, behavioral characteristics, location history, communications, biometric identifiers, and other deeply private matters.
Such information deserves the highest degree of legal and ethical protection.
California and federal law recognize numerous protections for confidential information, including protections governing unauthorized computer access, confidential medical information, attorney-client privilege, trade secrets, privacy, identity theft, and protected health information. These protections exist not merely to preserve secrecy, but to preserve dignity, trust, and individual autonomy.
Likewise, unauthorized intrusion into the confidential operations of a law practice, medical practice, healthcare provider, business, or other professional organization may injure not only the organization itself, but also its clients, patients, customers, employees, and the public that relies upon those institutions.
Technology should never become a vehicle for exploiting confidential relationships.
Nor should it become a means of intimidating professionals into abandoning their ethical obligations.
Nor should it become a means of targeting children, vulnerable adults, patients, witnesses, attorneys, journalists acting lawfully, healthcare professionals, businesses, or private citizens through coordinated campaigns of harassment or intimidation.
I am deeply concerned that modern technologies, including social media platforms, algorithmic recommendation systems, targeted advertising, behavioral profiling, data aggregation, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technologies, may be used in ways that facilitate coordinated harassment, discrimination, reputational injury, political doxxing, social intimidation, or the exploitation of vulnerable individuals if appropriate legal and ethical safeguards are not maintained.
Technology companies possess extraordinary influence over the dissemination of information. With that influence comes responsibility.
The exercise of editorial discretion, content moderation, or technological innovation should never facilitate unlawful conduct or contribute to the exploitation of individuals or communities.
Likewise, private investigators, security professionals, consultants, attorneys, journalists, media organizations, corporations, political organizations, advertisers, and public officials all remain subject to generally applicable civil and criminal laws.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press, political advocacy, and vigorous public debate. Those constitutional protections are among the greatest achievements of our constitutional republic.
They do not, however, create immunity from generally applicable laws governing trespass, unauthorized computer access, unlawful surveillance, identity theft, stalking, witness intimidation, obstruction of justice, unlawful interference with professional relationships, defamation, invasion of privacy, discrimination, fraud, or other independently unlawful conduct where the legal elements of those claims are established.
California law provides civil and criminal protections against conduct that may include criminal trespass, stalking, unauthorized access to computer systems and electronic data, invasion of privacy, intentional interference with contractual and prospective business relationships, unfair competition, and other unlawful conduct where supported by admissible evidence.
The rule of law applies equally to every person.
No profession is exempt.
No business is exempt.
No media organization is exempt.
No technology company is exempt.
No investigator, consultant, attorney, journalist, political organization, or public official is exempt from compliance with the law.
I remain committed to pursuing these issues peacefully, professionally, and through lawful constitutional processes. My work will continue to focus upon privacy, constitutional rights, medical autonomy, equal justice, professional ethics, and the protection of human dignity in an increasingly interconnected digital society.
The future of technology must be measured not only by innovation, but by whether it strengthens liberty, protects privacy, preserves professional integrity, safeguards confidential relationships, and respects the inherent dignity of every person entrusted to its reach.
Those principles should guide every institution in the digital age.
Lastly, I reject violence, threats, intimidation, and unlawful conduct. My work is based on the Constitution, due process, and the rule of law. I believe accountability must be pursued through lawful and peaceful means. This does not include physical trespass or using federal officers or carefully placed relationships to support such actions. It also excludes unlawful surveillance methods, including harmful acoustic techniques or other powerful technologies. These dangerous practices can cause serious injury or are used to harm individuals publicly, leading to serious physical, emotional, psychological, financial and reputational damage.
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 guidance on your specific situation, please consult a qualified attorney.
This article reflects ongoing research and commentary regarding privacy, autonomy, technology, constitutional law, and cognitive liberty. References to cognitive liberty concern emerging legal and ethical discussions involving freedom of thought, mental privacy, individual autonomy, and the impact of technology on human decision-making.
About the Author
California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Sally focuses on writing about legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.