February 26, 2014

Q&A with Julia Angwin, Wall Street Journal reporter and author of ‘Dragnet Nation’

Posted by: in North America

As outlined in our 10 Trends for 2014 and Beyond report, we’re reaching The End of Anonymity—it’s becoming nearly impossible to remain unobserved and untracked by corporations and governments alike. One of the experts we talked to about this topic was journalist Julia Angwin, whose new book, Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security, and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance, is out this week. Angwin has been delving into these issues for some time; at The Wall Street Journal, she led a team that chronicled the decline of online privacy in the award-winning series “What They Know.” Angwin talked to us about her own attempt to go off the radar, the potential harms of widespread data collection and how the privacy stakes will be raised in 2014.

Can you talk a bit about the thesis of your book and what you’re examining?

It used to be that companies or governments would need a reason to devote the resources to tracking an individual. With a company, for instance, if you’re a customer, they might have a little file about you. Or the government might have some records about you at the IRS, but your local police station likely wouldn’t have anything unless you were a suspect that they had at one time tracked. That is now flipped—everybody has information about everybody.

My book is about the rise of what I call indiscriminate surveillance, or dragnets, which is just collecting vast quantities of personal data about people, whether or not they are a suspect or if there’s any reason to. The technology is now available, and people are looking for insights and sweeping up vast amount of data. The questions I ask are, Why does this matter, and what can we do about it? I argue that there’s a lot of good that can come from surveillance—we can learn things, and knowing you’re watched causes people to often behave better. But it also can be extremely repressive. People can be afraid to say things and to express their views, and a democracy with vibrant debate is important. That is something we should take very seriously.

Then I talk about what should we do about it. I tried out a bunch of techniques to try to protect myself from indiscriminate tracking, ranging from using a burner phone to creating fake identities for online accounts, and doing all sorts of things using software to protect myself when I’m browsing the web. What I find is that I’m moderately successful at blocking some of it, but then I’m in an arms race I’m not going to win. Meaning, any time I make an advance, the people who are tracking me are going to have more money and more sophisticated tools to circumvent whatever it is I use to block it. I raise the question, is this a fair situation for individuals to be in if we can never get out of it?

What was your biggest challenge in trying to avoid any tracking?

The cell phone was probably the most challenging thing. If you want to use a phone, it’s always going to be in contact with the cell phone towers, and it’s going to be in contact with your cell phone provider, and Apple or Google. It’s communicating even when you’re not using it. People can snatch those communications, or those companies might be using those to analyze things or they might be giving them to the government. That’s what we learned with Snowden.

I tried a burner phone or a fake name, and that provided some level of anonymity, but the problem is that because the people I call are the same—it’s still my husband, it’s still my best friend—it’s not actually that hard to link that identity to myself. So, a very thin layer of protection. But then I found myself sticking my phone inside a bag called a Faraday bag, which blocks the signals. I would only take it out when I needed to use it, but the problem is, you can’t use it when it’s in the bag. So what’s the point of carrying the thing around? I also put anonymizing software on it so I could have encrypted calls and encrypted this and that, but the cell phone carrier, AT&T, still knows where I am. So once again it was just a limited amount of protection.

What’s driving the rise of what you call indiscriminate surveillance?

We have a couple of forces at work. First, technology is getting faster, cheaper, more powerful. So my phone is faster, cheaper and more powerful than the one I had five years ago. At the same time, so is the technology of the people who are scooping up all this data. So we’re in a period of really rapid innovation on the technology front, and then, since 9/11, we’ve been in a heightened-security situation, which the government has used to justify collecting more and more information. And we have a whole crop of Internet companies whose business model is built around scooping up vast amounts of personal information and trying to monetize it.

It’s a time where surveillance is everywhere. And pretty soon we’re all going to be wearing Google Glass and surveilling each other on the street, also.

Things have already changed a lot and then with innovations like Google Glass, how is that going to change the privacy situation further?

Bruce Schneier, who is a computer security expert, says that we’re living in a unique 10-year period where we can see the cameras, but soon they are going to be too small and everywhere, and we’re not going to be able to see them anymore. If we don’t set some limits on what are appropriate uses of data now, it’s going to be too late, because the technology will be too ubiquitous and too pervasive and too powerful.

Do you think we’ll see more legislation limiting what businesses can do as far as privacy and tracking?

We will see a combination of things, which is, one, probably some legislation. For instance, there’s already at least a dozen states that have passed legislation limiting the use of drones. A bunch of states have passed legislation limiting the use of DNA to identify people. Legislation will probably continue to be enacted as we as a society decide where we want to draw the line and what’s the limit we want to set.

I think our social norms are going to also change. Certainly people have become more aware of privacy the more they use Facebook, and that is probably going to change people’s willingness to agree to terms of services that are too invasive. And then the technology will change. There’s an emerging market of companies that are trying to sell privacy as a service. I imagine that might become a real market. Right now it’s a very small niche.

Have people have been pretty slow to understand the privacy implications of a lot of technology that they’ve embraced, like phones or social media?

People have been, I wouldn’t say slow, it’s just a difficult concept to grasp. The truth is, you’re getting something for free. You get Google search or you get an email for free. That seems really great. That seems like technology is bringing you a lot. We’re just now starting to see what are the costs you’re paying for that. You’re not paying in dollars, you’re paying in a different way, which is that you don’t really control your information. For some people that’s going to be more upsetting than for others.

In the end the problem we have as a society is we don’t yet know all the bad things that can happen as a result of that. It’s hard for us to tell whether it’s worth it. Is it really bad if the government is looking at all our email? Maybe it’s fine. But we need to see more evidence of what is happening to it and what kind of things might result from having your emails being surveilled. If it turns out that as a result you can’t get jobs or you are being discriminated against, we’re going to decide it’s bad. But if it turns out to be completely benign, maybe we’re going to decide it’s OK. The problem is, there’s not enough evidence. It’s too early.

Do you think people tend to fear the wrong things when it comes to privacy?  

The problem is that the jury is out. If we knew the answer to that, we could adequately make decisions about what is scary. For instance, the census. The government has been doing the census forever, and it’s pretty benign. They just want to know who lives here, et cetera. Over history, the census data has been abused. It was used to locate Japanese people and put them in internment camps during World War II, and after 9/11 it was used to locate Arab Americans so the FBI could surveil them. So even very innocuous data sets can be abused, which is why we need to think about, What are the limits we want to set on the uses of this data?

It’s probably unrealistic to think we’re not going to have huge amounts of data in our technology-saturated world. But we do need to have some limits on what can be done with it.

Do you think more people are starting to think through the trade-offs so that they’re OK with giving away data if they get enough benefit? 

It seems like the younger generation is thinking it through more. People always say that young people don’t care about privacy, but the studies show that young people are much savvier about their privacy settings. They’re the ones using these apps that make their texts disappear. I see evidence that the younger generation is becoming more savvy about choices they make with technology.

There’s a lot of conflicting studies where people on the one hand are creeped-out by certain practices and on the other hand welcome practices that involve getting discounts or benefits. Does it seem like people are of two minds here?

It’s really difficult for people to evaluate how their data may be used against them in the future. It’s very difficult to predict that. We’re just now starting to figure out how that might happen. Certainly once people realized that employers were looking on Facebook before hiring people, suddenly people who were in the job market started cleaning up their profiles. So once harm arises and people see it for what it is, they react to it. We’re in a period of time where we’re just going to learn more and more about all the ways things can go wrong.

So how can businesses respond—they’re more and more interested in collecting data, but at the same time people are getting more aware and nervous about it?

Businesses are in a hard situation. Their competitors are all doing it, so they need to get as much collection of data as possible. They see it as something they need to do for competitive advantage. At the same time, they’re concerned about stepping over the line. They don’t want to be the one that has a big article written about them.

There are some businesses, like Microsoft, that are pushing for legislation for baseline privacy protections because they want to even out the playing field. We’re the only Western nation without a baseline comprehensive privacy law. We have laws for health data like HIPAA, and we have laws for credit reporting, but we don’t have anything that basically says, Here is generally how any personal data has to be treated. Companies are at sea, and they’re looking for guidance in trying to figure out what’s the appropriate thing to do.

Are there any best practices businesses might start following?

The European nations that have these baseline privacy laws, you can see the data that the company holds about you, and if you want it back, you can get it. If you feel like that data has been used against you, you have a right to raise a claim. Those are the fundamental principles that underlie a lot of the advocacy for privacy legislation. So, access rights, ability to correct incorrect data and the ability to get some kind of redress if it’s been used against you.

We’re seeing more and more of these analytics companies that help retailers track customers in their store or restaurant. Do you think we’ll see people push back against that sort of thing?

Some retailers are using cell phone tracking—they can ping your cell phone and see how many people are in their store, where they’re moving, and this allows them to determine which aisles have more attractive displays and stuff like that. This is one of these classic examples: It seems rather innocuous in one way, because it’s anonymous and it’s just traffic patterns. But at the same time, it’s really invasive because it’s very personal—this is your movement in a store, and the information is tied to what is the equivalent of a serial number for your phone. Although it’s theoretically anonymous, it’s a number that’s associated with you and only you.

So the question this raises is whether this is too intrusive for the very marginal benefit it provides. I think the jury is out on that. There have been at least several cases where, once people found out this was happening, the outcry was such that the companies had to stop doing it. In London they put these little tracking things on some garbage cans in the street. People were like, “You don’t need to know when I’m walking by the garbage can.” I think that actually location tracking is one where people are more likely to draw the line—where you are is really sensitive.

For 2014, what are some of the things you think people will be talking about in terms of privacy?  

I do think there’s an emerging market for privacy-protecting technology. It is just coming online. I see more and more companies that are offering privacy as part of their features or as their competitive advantage, and I think there’s going to be more and more of that. This is going to raise the stakes, because as individuals start trying to protect their privacy more, the companies that depend on scooping up vast amounts of data and the governments that are doing this are going to have to make a decision: Are they going to up their game and try to get around those people and subvert their wishes and still get their data, or are they going to not do that?

That’s going to be a tipping point, because up until now, Google and Facebook have argued, “Well, you guys agreed to this.” But if people started not agreeing, then they have to make a different argument. [Facebook is] losing younger users, and I believe that people are becoming more cautious about what they post. It may take a long time to play out, but it is changing.

No Responses to "Q&A with Julia Angwin, Wall Street Journal reporter and author of ‘Dragnet Nation’"

Comment Form

SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY EMAIL NEWSLETTER:

New Trend Report: The Future of Payments & Currency

JWT AnxietyIndex

Things to Watch

  • Snapcash
    November 19, 2014 | 4:54 pm


    Disruption in the payments sphere is opening the way for social media brands to act as intermediaries between consumers and their money, as we note in our report on payments and currency. Facebook is said to be planning a P2P payments feature for Messenger, South Korea’s KakaoTalk announced a PayPal-like service in September, and Line is creating a mobile service that will let users make on- and offline purchases. Now, Snapchat is partnering with Square to enable payments between users, as explained in this video’s energetic retro musical number.

    After users (U.S. only and 18-plus only) enter debit card info, they simply send a cash amount within a text. While Snapchat’s recent data breaches may give some users pause, the P2P payments space is a smart place to be as young consumers get accustomed to services like Venmo that make it easy and even fun to pay friends. —Marian Berelowitz

  • Payment in a heartbeat
    November 11, 2014 | 5:26 pm

    Nymi-paywith

    Our recent report on the future of payments and currency spotlights the rise of biometric payments—using a unique physical characteristic to authenticate transactions—which promise to greatly improve security and help remove friction. So far we’ve seen systems that rely on fingerprints (e.g., Apple Pay) and the palm’s unique vein payment (see Quixter). Now, the startup Bionym is exploring ways to harness its Nymi wristband, which uses the wearer’s unique cardiac rhythm as authentication, for payments.

    Bionym is linking with MasterCard and the Royal Bank of Canada for a test in which an NFC chip in the wristband enables contactless payments. The company, which is looking to license its technology into other wearables, recently raised $14 million in a Series A funding round and has racked up 10,000 preorders for the Nymi. —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Nymi

  • Vegetable co-stars
    November 4, 2014 | 6:31 pm

    veggies_4

    “Vegetable co-stars” is one of our 100 Things to Watch in 2014—the idea that veggies are gaining a higher profile on restaurant menus—and more star chefs are indeed embracing this trend. José Andrés and his ThinkFood restaurant group plan to open Beefsteak (as in tomatoes), a vegetable-focused fast casual eatery in Washington, D.C., next year. The Washington Post also points to chef Roy Choi’s new greenhouse-like Commissary in L.A., which says it serves “good food and drink based around plants as the foundation.”

    “Chefs around the country, and the globe, are pushing meat from the center of the plate—and sometimes off it altogether,” notes The Wall Street Journal, citing examples like Alain Ducasse revamping his menu at the posh Plaza Athénée in Paris. Catering to a growing group of diners looking to eat less meat, vegetable-heavy dishes also offer new opportunities for creativity. —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Plaza Athénée

  • Xiaomi zooms ahead
    October 30, 2014 | 4:44 pm

    Xiaomi, which we included on our 100 Things to Watch in 2014 list, is now the world’s third-largest smartphone maker, according to IDC’s Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker. The young company has seen triple-digit year-over-year growth in smartphone shipments, per IDC, surging ahead of both LG and Lenovo. Often described as the “Apple of China,” Xiaomi released its first phone just three years ago; its latest, Mi4, is an iPhone clone that runs on a modified version of Android.

    The company is expanding beyond China into India and Singapore, and planning to enter a slew of other growth markets, including Russia, Turkey, Brazil and Mexico. For more on whether Chinese brands can succeed on the world stage, see our report Remaking “Made in China.”Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Xiaomi

     

  • Money & messaging apps
    October 23, 2014 | 11:13 am

    LINE_icon02

    Given the primary function of mobile messaging apps and their technical capabilities, money transfer and payments are an alluring proposition, as outlined in our new report on payments and currency. Snapchat filed two trademarks in July that indicate a potential move into peer-to-peer payments. The recently announced Line Pay will let Line users make purchases through their Line accounts, send funds to each other, and split costs using a “Dutch Pay” feature. Line Pay will launch in Japan and, as Tech in Asia reports, serve as “an entrance to new industries” thanks to integration with the new Line Taxi service and Line Wow, for food delivery. In South Korea, KakaoTalk launched the PayPal-like Kakao Pay in September, and a remittance service, Bank Wallet Kakao, is in the works. —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Line

  • The #TimsDark Experiment
    October 14, 2014 | 3:46 pm

    To entice customers into tasting its new dark roast, Canadian fast food chain Tim Hortons, with the help of JWT Canada, created a surprise immersive experience. A store in Quebec was wrapped in material that blocked all light from the outdoors. Patrons entered warily and, once inside, heard a staff member (who was wearing night vision goggles) guiding them through the dark. At the counter, customers were handed a cup of the dark roast—the brand’s first new blend in 50 years—with the darkness heightening their sense of taste. When the lights came on, the patrons saw they were on camera.

    The #TimsDark Experiment has garnered YouTube views and some press attention, and shows how creatively imagined immersive experiences—one of our 10 Trends for 2014—can encourage consumers to engage with a brand.

  • Bitcoin bank Circle
    October 7, 2014 | 4:40 pm

    Circle

    In late September, the startup Circle launched a web app that effectively functions as a bitcoin bank. Using a debit card or bank account, users transfer funds to Circle, which converts the money to bitcoin at no fee. Circle also insures this money at no cost. The company aims to make bitcoin more accessible via consumer-friendly design and is aiming to take on traditional banks and companies like PayPal, as The Guardian reports. Next up: Android and iOS Circle apps.

    Circle co-founder Jeremy Allaire gave a keynote at the Inside Bitcoins conference in April, citing the need for a “killer app” to bring bitcoin into the mainstream. Now Circle seems to be taking the lead, and others are sure to follow. —Nick Ayala

    Image credit: Circle

  • High-tech tasting
    October 2, 2014 | 6:00 pm

    Nanosensor

    Thailand got a lot of buzz this week with an innovative idea: a taste-tester robot, or electronic tongue, that’s programmed to distinguish authentic Thai dishes from wanna-be’s. Artificial tongues aren’t new but have been evolving. Most recently, Danish researchers developed a nanosensor that mimics “what happens in your mouth when you drink wine,” enabling winemakers to control astringency very early on. In Spain, researchers created a beer-tasting robot that can distinguish between varieties of brew.

    Meanwhile, advanced technology can also create recipes: IBM has touted how Watson, its “cognitive computing system,” can analyze the components of ingredients to come up with novel ideas for dishes; find a few of them here. —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Aarhus Universitet

  • Marriage gets marginalized
    September 25, 2014 | 5:00 pm

    One of our 10 Trends for 2012 was Marriage Optional: More people around the world are living together or remaining solo instead of marrying. Pew reports this week that 1 in 5 Americans age 25 and up have never married, a fundamental shift since 1960, when only about 1 in 10 could say the same. Millennials are especially ambivalent: Two-thirds of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed by Pew agree that “society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children” vs. 53 percent of the next generation up (age 30 to 49).

    Europe is seeing a similar move away from marriage, driven by “austerity, generational crisis and apathy towards the institution,” notes The Guardian. It says weddings are at historical lows in some nations; last year Italy recorded the fewest since World War I. For a look at how changing marriage patterns are affecting families, see our report Meet the New Family. —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: JD Hancock

     

  • Room-sharing service Breather
    September 16, 2014 | 3:30 pm

    Breather

    Described as the “Zipcar for rooms,” Breather is an app that enables access to “beautiful, practical spaces” that can be rented anywhere from 30 minutes to a whole day. While sharing-economy players like LiquidSpace and PivotDesk offer work and meeting spaces, Breather positions its rooms as homey spots that can serve a range of purposes (though not, the founder assures, seedy ones). Rooms include the basics—a desk, a couch, Wi-Fi—as well as some fun touches like a candy jar. Lockitron technology lets users unlock doors with their mobile phones. Breather is available in New York, Montreal and San Francisco, and recently raised $6.5 million in venture capital, citing plans to “own every major market in America.” —Hallie Steiner

    Image credit: Breather

  • RSSArchive for Things to Watch »