By Vilma Bodin
Introduction
Modern technological advancements have provided numerous benefits to contemporary society; however, they have also expanded the potential for increased surveillance of citizens. This has raised concerns for citizens' right to privacy and the risk of collected data being used for unethical purposes (Domazet et al, 2024). The concerns are not only applied to autocratic states’ use of surveillance technology, but also how democratic states, despite legal restrictions and safety regulations, have become subjects of critique (Shahbaz, 2018). In recent years the United States, which once were labeled as the ’’the land of the free’’ (U.S Department of State, n.d), has increasingly followed in the footsteps of China, which often is cited as a model of digital authoritarianism (Shahbaz, 2018). A contextual factor for the United States moving towards digital authoritarianism is that, until today, there is no federal privacy legislation in place, which consequently allows for extensive data exploitation (Boyne, 2019). The development can also be derived from the aftereffects of 9/11, as criticism was raised regarding the security and ability to protect citizens from terrorist threats, thereby leading to the patriot act being implemented. This meant a considerable expansion of national security through policies empowering mass surveillance and data collection (Lerner, 2016).
Although at the time the expansion was motivated by security efforts, the unexpected consequence can be seen today as facial recognition, social media monitoring and NSA (The US national security) mass surveillance are some examples of the adopted surveillance methods that erode civil liberties in the United States (Domit et al, 2020). With this development, women’s rights (among other marginalized groups) are particularly jeopardized (Khan, 2017).
1On June 22 in 2022, the U.S Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and officially declared that the constitutional right to abortion no longer exists. Following this decision, it would no longer be legal to obtain an abortion in more than half the states and more restrictions would likely follow (Totenberg & McCammon, 2022). In the aftermath, anti-choice lawmakers have been pursuing legislation to prosecute women, which has been made possible by the data and technology used in our everyday communications and activities. In practice, there are multiple ways that law enforcement agencies can obtain data from individuals:
(1) making legal requests to tech companies,
(2) accessing the physical device, or
(3) buying data from third parties (Sexton, 2023).
In a scenario where law enforcement attains personal information about an individual without a warrant, this would be considered illegal within the United States. However, although legal protections on personal information are protected under the Fourth Amendment, there are loopholes in the privacy laws that enable law enforcement to obtain the information. This is called ’’the third-party loophole’’ (Shenkman, 2021) and essentially means that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can, instead of collecting the personal information themselves, buy it from private companies (third parties) and in that way, bypass the privacy laws under the Fourth Amendment. This possibility to evade the law raises concerns for what anti-choice lawmakers could accomplish with the personal data obtained from third-party companies. An example of this is the Nebraska abortion case, where a 17-year-old girl had taken abortion pills at 28 weeks pregnant, which she then was prosecuted for. The investigators of the case found Facebook messages in which she had discussed the abortion pills with her mother. This was then used as evidence for the prosecution (Bailey, 2023). Although the procedure itself was illegal as per Nebraska laws, it is still concerning for the privacy and digital freedom of individuals.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade has significantly raised alarms about women’s privacy in general, and particularly on reproductive health and abortion access (Huq & Wexler, 2023). The digital landscape and the personal data we share online have become tools that potentially can be weaponized in jurisdictions with punitive or restrictive abortion laws. A group of United State lawmakers warned that ’’data brokers are already selling, licensing, and sharing the location information of people that visit abortion providers to anyone with a credit card.’’
Prosecutors in states where abortion has become illegal will soon be able to obtain warrants for location information about anyone who has visited an abortion provider (Korn & Duffy, 2022).
Feminists have, in particular, been at the forefront of criticizing the legislation following the overturn of Roe v. Wade (Equality Now, 2022; NWL, 2022). In an official statement by the feminist global non-governmental organization Equality Now (2022), they mention that the motives of overturning was about ’’[...] continuing a legacy of patriarchal control over reproduction and society writ large’’. Wood (2023) argues that the lack of the three main principles of feminist judging (ethics of care, intersectionality, and understanding contextual patriarchal control over women’s bodies and rights. The right to choose abortion is also shifts) in the judicial decision-making of overturning Roe v. Wade represents a reassertion of framed as a cornerstone of gender equality according to feminist theory. Thus, its removal signals a considerable regression in women’s bodily and legal autonomy (Manninen, 2023).
How the State Weaponizes Tech Against Women
As mentioned, the legislation has raised concerns about the risk of personal digital data being used to identify and prosecute individuals seeking or assisting an abortion (Sexton, 2023). This essay will explore the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the following risk of targeted surveillance on women, which can be seen as a setback in the feminist battle against patriarchal control. Thus, the argument for this essay will be the following; ’’The increased possibility for surveillance of women following the overturning of Roe v. Wade represents a modern extension of patriarchal control, where the state, with the help of technology and monitors, can reinforce gendered power structures and infringe on bodily autonomy.
Disinformation as a Tool of Reproductive Control
Prior to and after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there have been various disinformation attempts, seemingly with the goal of altering the public perception on the abortion discourse to gain support for certain policies. Although the government itself has not been proven to partake in such disinformation campaigns, politicians, lawmakers, and other actors have used their influence in order to gain attention for their preferred policy directions. One common appearance seen in the making of legislative bills for anti-abortion cases is that they frequently are in conflict with scientific evidence. One example of this is the ’’heartbeat bill’’ introduced by senator Bryan Hughes in Texas in may 2021. The primary motive for the bill was that all human lives in Texas should be protected under state law, which, according to the bill, would include a fetus of 6 weeks since they ‘’developed a heartbeat’’. However, this assumption has been scientifically proven to be false, making the bill a clear example of misinformation-led policy decision-making (Irvine, 2021). Another example of how disinformation is used in the political sphere in relation to the anti-abortion discourse is false claims about abortions later in pregnancy, which is used to distort the perceptions of how often and when pregnant people have abortions. In some cases these claims have been exaggerated to state that individuals seek abortions after birth. During a presidential debate in 2024, Donald Trump falsely claimed that democrats support ’’abortion after birth’’, equating it to infanticide. However, his statement has been proven false, whereby his claims can be understood as a disinformation campaign both for gaining support on anti-abortion policies and to discredit his opponent. These kinds of campaigns have become increasingly prevalent in the narratives of the Republican Party lately and have proven effective in terms of social media engagement, as social media users' acceptance of Trump's statement as truth spiked every time he mentioned the claim (Washington & Yilma, 2024).
With Donald Trump being re-elected for the presidency in 2024, the effort to restrict access to reproductive health care has intensified. Within weeks of taking office, the Trump administration dropped the government’s litigation efforts to enforce protections aligning with EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act). This law requires hospitals to provide immediate, life-saving stabilizing treatment to all patients with emergency medical conditions. This restricts emergency abortion care for pregnant people facing life-threatening conditions. Not only have regular abortion and emergency abortions been stripped away, but other basic reproductive health care has also been severely limited or completely revoked.
After the freezing of funds for Title X recipients like clinics providing services and information on birth control, cancer screening, and STI screenings to low-income and marginalized communities, access to crucial care will become limited, especially for individuals already facing financial barriers. Even the information about rights and access to reproductive health care has been targeted. The official website for information on patient rights and how to access reproductive care was taken down within hours of Trump taking office (CRR, 2025). With the erasing of and control of accessible information, parallels can be drawn to censorship campaigns made by China (Shahbaz, 2018), which again reveals how the United States has increasingly started to implement digital authoritarian methods.
These campaigns and efforts to spread misinformation and censor information have had a significant impact on information dissemination and public perception in the United States. Although the debate on abortion rights has been a persistent topic in the political sphere for a long time, recent years indicate a rise in political activity regarding the topic, particularly after Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, where he promised to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, appealing to religious and conservative voters (Dinan & Wolfgang, 2016). This decision would ultimately lead to a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, resulting in the overturning of Roe v. Wade (Totenberg & McCammon, 2022). Seemingly to gain more support, conservative policymakers have been introducing bills like the ’’heartbeat bill’’, that are based on scientifically false claims (Irvine, 2021). Also, the false claims on ’’abortion after birth’’ can also be considered a disinformation campaign which, indicated by social media engagement, proved to be effective for gaining support for his false narrative (Washington & Yilma, 2024). With all these disinformation campaigns circulating, the public perception becomes uncertain since legitimized leaders and actors are the ones spreading this information.
Data Brokers, Digital Trails, and the Policing of Women
As mentioned, the overturning of Roe v. Wade has sparked discussion on the risk of data and technology being used to prosecute women. One frequently mentioned case of this is period tracking apps (Sexton, 2023). The concerns are based on the function of these apps, since they are used to plan menstrual cycles, identify when one is most fertile, or for noticing irregularities in the cycle, which could, in a dystopian scenario, tip off police if a prolonged period is followed by a return to a normal menstrual cycle. The possibility of this scenario is certainly realistic, as some period-tracking apps have already been proven guilty of sharing its users' health data. One example of this is the app Flo which settled Federal Trade Commission allegations in 2021 for sharing the users’ data with third-party analytics despite the promise of keeping the data private. This confirms that law enforcement can access users’ menstrual data directly from the app or obtain it through ' third-party loopholes’ (Sexton, 2023; Shenkman, 2021). However, this possibility depends on where the app developer is headquartered, where the data is stored, and whether the data can legally be sold to third-parties. Clue is another popular period-tracking app based in Germany that is operating under stricter data legislations, making it prohibited to share users’ health data according to EU law (Sexton, 2023). Not only have period-tracking apps been subject to concern of private data being shared to law enforcement, but location tracking apps have faced similar critique. To demonstrate the risk the GPS data could pose after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, an investigative reporter purchased location data from the third-party data broker SafeGraph which aggregates GPS data collected from other smartphone apps, showing, among other things, the data for visits to Planned Parenthood facilities. The data does not include the identities of the visitors; however, it gives informed guesses of where these individuals live based on where smartphones tend to spend the night (Sexton, 2023). As emphasized by Sexton (2023), these datasets can easily be seized by law enforcement to punish people having abortions, illustrating how tracking data can be weaponized against women.
Although data brokers pose a threat to data privacy, there are other companies like Google that operate in ways that also can be considered privacy infringing to the benefit of law enforcement. Their policy of privacy includes initially anonymizing the data that is shared in order to safeguard against overboard geofence searches in investigations. However, if law enforcement can produce enough information that affirms the need, they will de-anonymize certain data, allowing the police to identify whose phones were at a certain place that is under investigation. As Google have faced considerable criticism they have taken measured responses by ’’significantly curtail’’ its users' data tracking, even when customers opt in.
Seemingly, the company has been determined to be more reticent in complying with law enforcement requests for data by no longer storing location data for visits to abortion clinics and domestic violence shelters in an effort to protect users who are getting abortions at illicit facilities in states with abortion prohibition (Sexton, 2023).
Sexton (2023) predicts that more companies will follow these efforts to roll out encryption for customers and users by default in order to provide protection to their users after the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the increased suspicion directed towards people able to get pregnant. Politicians have also made efforts to combat the realistic possibility of data brokers and companies being utilized to garner data to surveil women. In 2022 California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill to make the state a ’’data haven’’ for health information related to abortion and reproductive health (Sexton, 2023).
Feminist Critique: Deconstructing the Digital Patriarchy
Feminist advocates share the concern that those who seek abortions could potentially be exposed by private tech companies handling or selling personal data to governments, law enforcements or anti-abortion groups. Critique has also been directed towards the foundation of the original law of Roe v. Wade, as it secured an individual’s legal right to ’choose’ to terminate gestation, but did nothing to guarantee equitable and collective access to abortion. Thus, the protections afforded by the law as a privacy ruling has been deemed as flawed and inadequate (Feminist Theory, 2023). However, with the overturning of the law, states now have more power to police pregnancy, which, according to feminist ideas, can lead to a shift from medical oversight to legal oversight, where women’s bodies become potential crime scenes (Huq & Wexler, 2023). The principle that individuals should ’’have the freedom to make informed decisions about their reproductive health without external interference’’ (Nyinawagaba, 2024:9) is central to feminist ideology. Emphasis is particularly put on the access to safe and legal abortion services as it is deemed a critical aspect of these rights, integral to women’s empowerment and wellbeing, making the overturn of Roe v. Wade a direct attack on this feminist principle (Nyinawagaba, 2024). Furthermore, the risk of data brokers and companies sharing users’ data and the possibility that this would disproportionately affect women, challenges the principle of bodily autonomy and informed consent in digital spaces (Huq & Wexler, 2023: Nyinawagaba, 2024). As the feminist organization Equality Now (2022) mentioned, the motives for the overruling might be an effort to continue the legacy of patriarchal control of reproduction and women.
The Real-Life Cost of Digital Repression
Although the initial aim of period-tracking apps were to function as a means to understand better and manage menstrual and reproductive health (Kelly & Habib, 2023), the implications of the apps reveals that the they in reality have the possibility to become an extended means for surveilling women on their reproductive health in the United States (Sexton, 2023). This has brought insecurity for the users, which as a reaction might stop using the apps out of fear that their data would be surveilled for prosecution (Ries, 2024). They may also stop using search engines like Google to search for information regarding abortion, miscarriage and reproductive health (Newman, 2022). As practical scenarios reveal (Bailey, 2023), even holding private conversations on messaging apps will be dangerous for women, thus one can argue that it is likely that women will censor their discussions and activities that can be translated into data (Newman, 2022). The revoking and limitation of reproductive health and information (CRR, 2025) can also have an effect on the extent that women seek medical care for reproductive health, as they might delay visits to hospitals in fear that they, instead of getting medical help, would be suspected of crime instead (Lee, 2024). The implications for women are therefore likely to be extensive, limiting their liberty in expressing themselves online, having limited information and access to reproductive health, but most of all, living with the fear of being surveilled by their own government for the crime of wanting bodily autonomy.
Conclusion: Feminist Strategies for Reclaiming Digital Freedom
In connection to the increased risk of how women can be targeted with surveillance regarding reproductive aspects, there are a few ways for addressing and preventing this type of digital authoritarianism. Lu (2023) emphasizes that the key to breaking the system of surveillance capitalism is to disrupt the profit of behavioral surplus from tech platforms and data brokers, since these actors have little incentive to self-regulate. For example, a step towards a solution would be the introduction of the executive order of 14076 that would make health apps, including period-tracking apps, fall under HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Furthermore, messaging apps would be in need of end-to-end encryption to ensure the privacy of the users (Lu, 2023). Huq & Wexler (2023) highlight how categorical restrictions on responding to legal process are needed for tech companies particularly. This is because the absence of such restrictions enables litigants to flood companies with subpoenas. As this privilege protection would protect firms from being conscripted into an agent of law enforcement, it would fit into firm’s financial incentives to resist third parties' demands on data.
Although there have been legal efforts to counter Roe v. Wade like introducing the ’’my body, my data act’’, the success has been limited for protecting digital privacy and data on personal reproductive information (Feminist Theory, 2023). Nyanawagaba (2024) emphasizes that political advocacy remains a vital strategy in countering the abortion laws and policies at both the national and international level. Additionally, efforts to dismantle barriers to reproductive healthcare and promote equity are viewed as essential.
A limited but yet still effective measure could be for individuals to boycott companies associated with the risk of surveilling personal information, particularly on reproductive health. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, online toolkits emerged to help individuals protect their digital privacy and safeguard themselves against tech companies and law enforcement. For example, this entailed erasing period-tracking apps, turning off location tracking, and downloading encrypted messaging apps (Feminist Theory, 2023).
However, there are reasons to be sceptical of the effect of such a movement. Although individuals might feel threatened by the risk of being surveilled through their data shared online, many would be reluctant to take personal action. This is connected to the'privacy paradox,' which refers to the tendency for people to continue using services that undermine their privacy (Naughton, 2019). With this in mind, the most effective way of achieving change might be as discussed earlier, to politically advocate and push for legislative protections for digital privacy (Feminist Theory, 2023: Lu, 2023: Huq & Wexler, 2023).
References
Bailey, C., (2023). Nebraska teen jailed for illegal disposal of her aborted foetus. BBC, [online], 21 July, Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66271537> [Accessed 5 May 2025]
Boyne, S.M., (2019). Data Protection in the United States - U.S. National Report. In: Moura, D.V ., de Vasconcelos, S.C., (eds) Data Protection in the Internet. lus Comparatum - GlobalStudies in Comparative Law (vol. 38), pp. 409-455, Springer, Cham, Available at: <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-28049-9_17> [Accessed 10 May 2025]
CRR, (2025). Red Flag #1: Restricted Access to Reproductive Health Care in the U.S. Center for Reproductive Right, [online], Available at: <https://reproductiverights.org/agency-watch/100days/redflag1/> [Accessed 18 May 2025]
Domazet, S., Marković, D., & Skakavac, T., (2024). Privacy under threat - The intersection of IoT and mass surveillance. Pravo - teorija i praksa 41(3), pp. 109-124, [online], Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385117889_Privacy_under_threat_The_intersection_of_IoT_and_mass_surveillance> [Accessed 29 April 2025]
Domit, P., Leeper, R., & Zutter, L., (2020). US Tapping China: Trends of Surveillance and
Digital Authoritarianism in the US and China. AI World Society (AIWS), [online], Available at:
<https://aiws.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2020/09/Domit_Leeper_Zutter_CGDF_Surveillance_and_Digital_Authoritarianism_US_and_China_Sept_2020pdf.pdf> [Accessed 29 April, 2025]
Dinan, S., & Wolfgang, B., (2016). Donald Trump says his justices will overturn Roe v. Wade abortion decision. The Washington Times. [online], 19 October, Available at:<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/19/donald-trump-says-his-justices-will-overturn-roe-v/> [Accessed 18 May 2025]
Equality Now, (2022). Our Statement On The US Supreme Court’ s Decision to Overturn Roev. Wade. Equality Now, [online], 24 June, Available at:<https://equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/our-statement-on-the-us-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/> [Accessed 9 May 2025]
Feminist Theoy, (2023). Abortion, Digital Surveillance and the Problem with Privacy,Feminist Theory - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Feminist Thought. [online], Available at:<https://feministtheoryjournal.com/2023/02/07/abortion-digital-surveillance-and-the-problem-with-privacy/> [Accessed 18 May 2025]
Huq, A.Z., & Wexler, R., (2023). Digital Privacy for Reproductive Choice in the Post-Roe Era. New York University Law Review, V ol. 97, University of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No.812, [online], Available at: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4191990> [Accessed 5 May 2025]
Irvine, B., (2021). Why ’’heartbeat bill’’ is a misleading name for Texas’ near-total abortion ban. The Texas Tribune, [online], 2 September, Available at:<https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-heartbeat-bill/> [Accessed 17 May
2025]
Korn, J., & Duffy, C., (2022). Search histories, location data, text messages: How personal data could be used to enforce anti-abortion laws. CNN, [online], 24 June, Available at:<https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/abortion-laws-data-privacy> [Accessed 5 May 2025]
Khan, S., (2017). Surveillance as a Feminist Issue. Privacy International, [online], 21 November, Available at: <https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/3376/surveillance-feminist-issue> [Accessed 17 May 2025]
10Kelly, B.G., & Habib, M., (2023). Missed period? The significance of period-tracking applications in a post-Roe America. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 31(4), pp. 1-4,[online], Available at: <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10494721/> [Accessed 21 May 2025]
Lee, C., (2024). The Rise of Pregnancy Criminalization Post-Dobbs. TIME, [online],24 September, Available at: <https://time.com/7024133/pregnancy-criminalization-post-dobbs/> [Accessed 24 May 2025]
Lu, C., (2023). Abortion in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Harvard Political Review, [online], 28 April, Available at: <https://harvardpolitics.com/abortion-in-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/> [Accessed 29 May 2025]
Lerner, C.S., (2016). The USA Patriot Act: Promoting the Cooperation of Foreign Intelligence Gathering and Law Enforcement. George Mason Law Review 11(3), pp.493-526, [online], Available at: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2759016> [Accessed 10 May 2025]
Manninen, B.A., (2023). A Critical Analysis of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the Consequences of Fetal Personhood. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32(3), pp. 357-367, [online], Available at: <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/critical-analysis-of-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-and-the-consequences-of-fetal-personhood/A8803B46F4A0C9157C639289F463A83C> [Accessed 10 May 2025]
Naughton, J., (2019). The Privacy Paradox: Why do people keep using tech firms that abuse their data?. The Guardian, [online], 5 May, Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/05/privacy-paradox-why-do-people-keep-using-tech-firms-data-facebook-scandal> [Accessed 29 May 2025]
Newman, L.H., (2022). How to Protect Your Digital Privacy if Roe v. Wade Falls. WIRED,[online], 5 May, Available at: <https://www.wired.com/story/roe-v-wade-privacy-practices/>[Accessed 24 May 2025]
NWL, (2022). NWLC Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade. National Women’s Law Center, [online], 24 June, Available at: <https://nwlc.org/press-release/nwlc-reacts-to-scotus-overturning-roe-v-wade/> [Accessed 9 May 2025]
11Nyinawagaba, B.R., (2024). Reproductive Rights as Fundamental Human Rights - A Feminist Perspective on Bodily Autonomy and Social Justice. Eurasian Experiment Journal of Humanities and Social Science 5(2), pp. 9-14, [online], Available at <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383548811_Reproductive_Rights_as_Fundamental_Human_Rights_A_Feminist_Perspective_on_Bodily_Autonomy_and_Social_Justice>[Accessed 20 May 2025]
Ries, J., (2024). Why Are Period-Tracking Apps Bad - and Should You Delete Yours?.Health, [online], 6 November, Available at: <https://www.health.com/news/should-you-delete-period-tracking-app> [Accessed 24 May 2025]
Sexton, M., (2023). The New Front in the Battle for Digital Privacy Post-Dobbs. Third Way,[online], 22 January, Available at: <https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-new-front-in-the-battle-for-digital-privacy-post-dobbs> [Accessed 3 May 2025]
Shahbaz, A., (2018). The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism. Freedom house, [online], Available at:
29 April 2025] <https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism> [Accessed
Totenberg, N., & McCammon, S., (2022). Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades. NPR, [online], 24 June, Available at: <https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn> [Accessed 3 May 2025]
U.S Department of State. (n.d.). America stands for freedom. United States Department of State, [online], Available at: <https://2017-2021.state.gov/america-stands-for-freedom/> [Accessed 29 April 2025]
Washington, I., & Yilma, H., (2024). How Abortion Misinformation Gives Rise to Restrictive Abortion Laws, KFF, [online], Available at: <https://www.kff.org/the-monitor/how-abortion-misinformation-gives-rise-to-restrictive-abortion-laws/> [Accessed 17 May 2025]
Wood, L., (2023). Feminist Judging and Judicial Decision Making: An Analysis of Dobbs v.Jackson. The National High School Journal of Science, [online], 24 June, Available at:<https://nhsjs.com/2023/feminist-judging-and-judicial-decision-making-an-analysis-of-dobbs-v-jackson/> [Accessed 10 May 2025]
Olga Solovyeva, PhD | Good tech & Digital safety strategist | London, UK
© 2025 Good Tech Strategy. All rights reserved.