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

SXSW: Raging Against the Machine

SXSW: How Brands Can Get ‘Circular’ and Why They Must

New Trend Report: The Circular Economy

2014 iPad App

Updates

Sign up for Email Updates

JWT AnxietyIndex

Things to Watch

  • Nestlé’s animal-welfare standards
    August 28, 2014 | 10:00 am

    Nestle

    We wrote about rising concerns over treatment of the animals that people eat back in 2012 as brands including Burger King, McDonald’s and Hellmann’s pledged to institute more humane practices. We also included Humane Food among our Things to Watch for 2013. The trend recently picked up more steam with Nestlé’s announcement of animal welfare standards for its suppliers worldwide, following an investigation by the group Mercy for Animals.

    “The move is one of the broadest-reaching commitments to improving the quality of life for animals in the food system,” notes The New York Times, “and it is likely to have an impact on other companies that either share the same suppliers or compete with Nestlé.” Observed the influential blogger Food Babe: “People want to know where their food comes from, and in order to survive the next decade, the food industry will have to change.” —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Nestlé

  • Alternative waters
    August 19, 2014 | 1:59 pm

    Vertical Water

    With the coconut water craze going strong, watch for more variations on H2O thanks to consumer interest in more natural alternatives to soda and openness to novel products. Antioxidant-rich maple water (made from maple sap) is gaining attention, while almond water from the startup Victoria’s Kitchen has secured space at Whole Foods and Target. As the AP reports, there’s also cactus, birch and artichoke water—made from either water extracted from the plant or boiled with the ingredient in question—whose makers tout their vitamin and mineral content, as well as their infection-fighting properties. —Allison Kruk

    Image credit: Vertical Water

  • Smart mannequins
    August 13, 2014 | 5:01 pm

    Iconeme

    One of our Things to Watch in 2014, beacons have been popping up everywhere from airports to restaurants to museums. But the biggest pickup for these devices—low-cost transmitters that use Bluetooth to precisely track consumers’ mobile phones and send targeted content—has been among retailers. Now, British retailers including House of Fraser, Hawes & Curtis and Bentalls are testing mannequins outfitted with VMbeacon technology from the startup Iconeme.

    A “smart mannequin” enables nearby shoppers with a related mobile app to get details about what it’s wearing and how to find the products in the store or buy them online. The big question is whether customers will be motivated to opt in; skeptics say the technology doesn’t yet provide enough real benefit. —Allison Kruk

    Image credit: Iconeme

  • De-teching apps
    August 7, 2014 | 10:55 am

    De-teching—the idea that more people will choose to temporarily log off—was one of our 10 Trends for 2011, and in our 2014 trend Mindful Living, we discussed the idea that digitally immersed consumers will try to use technology more mindfully. Perhaps ironically, several new apps aim to help people do so.

    Moment tracks phone use and alerts users when they reach their self-imposed daily limit. Pause is “designed to help us reconnect with real life”; it encourages people to use Airplane Mode and engage in real-world activities, and attempts to turn this behavior into a game among friends. Finally, Menthal is part of a research project out of Germany that helps users find out, “Are you in control of your smartphone? Or is your smartphone controlling you?” —Marian Berelowitz

  • Intuitive eating
    July 29, 2014 | 5:00 pm

    Veggies

    As spotlighted in our 10 Trends for 2014 report, people are becoming more interested in Mindful Living, including the notion of eating more mindfully. And with consumers showing declining interest in dieting, the idea of “intuitive eating”—paying closer attention to the body’s hunger signals rather than following a strict regimen—has been steadily gaining traction. Recent media mentions include articles in Fitness and New Zealand’s Stuff, and a Refinery 29 writer is blogging about adopting the practice. With a recent analysis of studies finding that intuitive eating can be a successful strategy for people who are overweight or obese, watch for more consumers to embrace this anti-diet philosophy. —Allison Kruk

    Image credit: Theresa Kinsella

  • Chinese mega-cities
    July 24, 2014 | 1:15 pm

    Tianjin

    China, home to the world’s second largest rural population, is expected to add close to 300 million more urbanites by 2030, when Shanghai and Beijing will likely account for two of the world’s Top 5 mega-cities, according to new UN research. “We are observing one of the most significant economic transformations the world has seen: 21st-century China is urbanizing on a scale 100 times that seen in 19th-century Britain and at 10 times the speed,” notes a new McKinsey paper on cities and luxury markets. China’s wealth will be concentrated in these urban areas: Over the next decade, McKinsey expects Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Chongqing and Shenzhen, in addition to Hong Kong, to join the list of “top luxury cities.” —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Jakob Montrasio

  • Brands + Google Glass
    July 15, 2014 | 6:09 pm

    SPG

    As Google Glass makes its way into the hands of more people (last month it became available in the U.K.), brands are experimenting with the new possibilities that the platform affords. In March, Kenneth Cole became the first to launch a marketing campaign—the “Man Up for Mankind Challenge”—through a Glass app. Users were challenged to perform and document good deeds for the chance to win a prize.

    Starwood’s new Glass app, billed as the first such app from the hospitality sector, lets people voice-search its properties, view photos and amenities, get directions and book rooms. An array of other marketers have turned out apps for early adopters, from Sherman Williams’ ColorSnap Glass (easily create a paint chip that mirrors anything in view) to Fidelity (delivers daily market quotes for Glass wearers). —Tony Oblen

    Image credit: SPG

  • Ugly produce
    July 10, 2014 | 2:45 pm

    Intermarche

    Ugly Produce, on our list of 100 Things to Watch in 2014, is proliferating in Europe, thanks in part to government efforts to reduce the 89 million tons of food wasted in Europe each year. In France, Intermarché has been getting buzz for creating a produce section dedicated to “Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables”; a whimsical ad campaign reportedly drove a 24 percent rise in store traffic.

    U.K. supermarket Waitrose recently began selling packs of tomatoes that are misshapen or have fallen off the vine naturally. And in Portugal, Fruta Feia (“Ugly Fruit”) is a cooperative launched in late 2013 that sells unsightly produce that would have gone to waste. Per The New York Times, the group already has a waiting list of 1,000 customers. In line with one of our 10 Trends for 2014, Proudly Imperfect, watch for ugly produce to catch on with both retailers and shoppers. —Jessica Vaughn

    Image credit: Intermarché

  • The $1.25 Cube
    July 3, 2014 | 12:30 pm

    As we outline in Immersive Experiences, one of our 10 Trends for 2014 and Beyond, entertainment and narratives are becoming more enveloping in a bid to capture consumers’ imagination and attention. An immersive project from JWT Israel, a winner of the Cannes Chimera challenge, aims to help people experience what it’s like to live in extreme poverty. Once it’s created, the cube will create a multisensory experience that uses tools like augmented reality to simulate sights, sounds and smells and elicit certain feelings. Participants can exit only when the person in line behind them inserts $1.25, a metaphor for the collaborative efforts needed to fight poverty. The aim is for the cube to travel to international events like the Davos conference in order to influence global leaders. —Hallie Steiner

    Image credit: JWT Israel

  • Google’s Android Auto
    June 26, 2014 | 3:00 pm

     

    Android

    The connected car is rapidly becoming a reality. Fast 4G LTE connections are turning vehicles into hot spots that come with a data plan, while Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android are making their way onto dashboards. This week Google introduced Android Auto, with the first compatible cars expected by year-end. Apple’s similar CarPlay, which turns the car into a platform for an iPhone’s content, was announced in March and is included in new Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo models.

    Car-based app ecosystems will provide relevant info (traffic, maps, vehicle diagnostics, restaurant suggestions) and entertainment, combined with safety precautions like voice control. As we outline in our mobile trends report, connected cars—complete with Internet hot spots, a suite of apps and sensors that communicate—will eventually link up with drivers’ homes, mobile devices and other gadgets to form a seamless system. —Marian Berelowitz

    Image credit: Android

  • RSSArchive for Things to Watch »