The Boundary Layer Between Law and Technology in the Connected Society

by Zapproved LLC

[guest author: Glenn Greenwald, American Journalist]

*The text below is a heavily edited summary of Mr. Greenwald’s keynote remarks at PREX17, the premier conference for in-house e-discovery professionals. His positions and views are his own, and not necessarily reflective of views held by PREX or the sponsor organizations.

If someone said to me, “You have to choose one phrase to describe the last couple of decades of world history, what would it be?” I would have very little trouble answering that question. I would describe the last couple of decades as being the era of ‘the internet,’ because I think there hasn’t been any technology in a long time that has transformed every component of our social, political and cultural life quite like this innovation has.

There’s an interesting dynamic when a new technology emerges. As human beings our instinct is to get excited about the technology, to think about how it can make our lives better and more interesting. What we think much less about are the implications of this new technology. How might it change our lives in ways that we don’t necessarily consider desirable? What controls are necessary in order to prevent those harms from happening?

For instance, we have a handful of extraordinarily powerful new companies that have amassed more wealth and power and data about all of us than was previously even imaginable. I’m talking, of course, about Facebook and Google and Apple and a handful of others, a kind of merger of financial, political and surveillance power that has never existed before. In recent months people started speculating, in a pretty intensive way, about the possibility that the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, would run for President in 2020. That has led to, for the first time, an effort to grapple with what that would mean — for somebody who runs a company and has a large shareholding interest in that company, that has an unprecedented degree of financial, political and data power, who would then merge it with that level of public power.

Additionally, there is the fact that two companies, Facebook and Google, have purchased over eighty percent of the brain power in the world for developing artificial intelligence and are developing that incredibly important technology privately, therefore, with no public understanding or discussion about what the impact of that technology might be.

I think it is impossible to exaggerate or overstate just how extensive and consequential digital surveillance has become, more or less in complete secrecy, and in a very short period of time. As I think you know, I have spent the last four years reading through many thousands of top secret documents from the most secretive agency, the NSA, in the world’s most powerful government, which is the United States government. In doing so there have been all kinds of remarkable things I’ve seen, and I remember, very vividly, the thing that actually shocked me the most — that the NSA has a motto. That motto is, collect it all. And then when it wants, monitor and analyze all forms of human communication that take place digitally in the world, not just in between foreign nationals but also American citizens. Every single day the NSA collects and stores billions of human communication events.

The most vivid event that highlights and dramatizes the magnitude of what we’re talking about is when, in late 2014, we were able to report that the NSA and its allies were spying on the communications not only of terrorist leaders or of regimes in autocratic, adversarial countries but also the leaders of democratic allies, particularly the phone calls of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. In a telephone call that Merkel later made to President Obama in the wake of that revelation, she said to him that, as someone who grew up in Communist East Germany, that these activities were very redolent for her of what the East German Stasi was doing in her childhood.

News media representatives interviewed former intelligence agents with the East German Stasi and asked them about Chancellor Merkel’s statement. These agents said that what the NSA was doing was so far beyond what they were even capable of dreaming about. The idea of being able to collect everything digitally and having algorithms to analyze it and evaluate it is so far beyond their wildest dreams that this is something that you can’t even compare to the machinery that they built. That’s the reality of what has been constructed.

So for me, I know that when I read through these documents for the first time and understood the full extent of what had been done, what offended me the most was not the assault on privacy that these documents revealed, but the assault on democracy. The fact that the government had taken the most influential and significant human innovation, at least of the last several decades, and converted it from this tool of unprecedented liberalization and democratization into a tool of unprecedented coercion and control and monitoring, and had done so without any kind of democratic debate of societal understanding, made me question what democracy actually means if the government is undertaking the most consequential actions almost entirely in the dark.

In a society in which the government is keeping track of everybody’s communication activities — who is talking to whom, where they are physically, how long a conversation lasts, etc. — all the things that the government was collecting, not about foreign nationals but American citizens, how do you have a meaningful free press? How can you be a human rights activist and report on the abuses in tyrannical regimes if the fact that people are coming to you to report abuses will be known to anybody with access to this surveillance data? How do you, as lawyers or people who work in the legal profession, be able to offer assurances to your client that the information they’re telling you will be confidential and known only to you and to them in a society that, increasingly, has eroded the ability to speak without detection?

Whenever I go anywhere in the world and talk about this story, the first question people always ask is what has really changed? Everybody knows the story, more or less. But did anything actually change as a result? And usually what they mean by that is, well, there’s still the building called the National Security Agency in Washington. The doors are open and they’re still spying.

There actually are some extremely significant changes just in the last four years that have taken place. It was enough of a controversy that some actual legislative and legal reforms were implemented, things like having the government no longer collecting the metadata showing everybody’s communications here in the United States. It’s now held by the phone and technology companies. There have been reforms to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance) Court, the secret court. For many years, only the government was permitted to attend and offer its side. The biggest change is that there’s now a public advocate to advocate against the requests for surveillance that the government makes.

Individual behavior has changed dramatically in the last few years. If you look at the number of people who now use encryption technology to safeguard the privacy of their emails and their online chats and even their telephone calls, it’s something like fifteen or twenty times higher in North America and in Western Europe than it was four years ago. It’s something like five to ten times higher in South America and Asia.

And particularly in professions where confidentiality is required, whether it be medicine or journalism or human rights activism or law, large institutions and increasingly mid-sized and smaller ones are now viewing the installment of encryption and other confidentiality technologies as their duty, as their ethical obligation, to make the promises of confidentiality something more than illusory. That has been a serious impediment in the ability of government and non-State actors to spy on peoples’ communications.

But the most significant change has taken place in the behavior of the Silicon Valley companies: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple and the others. One of the first stories that I was able to report after meeting with [Edward] Snowden was the existence of a prism program, which is a program that was created by the nine leading internet companies where they essentially made it extremely easy to turn over huge amounts of data and information about their users to the United States government when requests were made. And the reason that level of cooperation existed was because they were doing it without anybody’s knowledge. And therefore, there was no cost to it, only lots of benefits.

But once this debate happened, people began demanding that their internet and technology companies demonstrate a serious commitment to the protection of their privacy. Facebook and Apple and Google became concerned that they would lose an entire generation of users to social media companies in Germany or Brazil or South Korea. And so those companies began viewing the protection of privacy not as a political value, but as a commercial imperative, as something necessary to safeguard the future profitability of their companies. And they now do actually install very sophisticated and difficult to breach end to end encryption in many of their technologies that prevent the U.S. government from spying on whoever it is that they want.

Four years ago, technology was the number one leading tool of how privacy was compromised. Now, technology is the number one leading tool for how privacy is protected.

I want to spend some time talking about the value of privacy. I think that the primary mindset that causes people to be willing to be dismissive of the importance of privacy, to think that invasions into and erosions of it aren’t really that bothersome is a line of thinking that goes something like this. It says, look, if you’re a terrorist or some really horrible criminal or a pedophile, somebody who uses the internet for really hideous things, then, of course, you should be worried about privacy. But I’m not that. I’m not a criminal. And I don’t use the internet for any criminal activity. And so, I just am not one of these bad people. I really don’t care about privacy because I don’t have anything to hide.

I think that the people who make that claim don’t actually believe it. And the reason I’m so confident saying that is because I think you can look to their actions and see how insincere it actually is.

The long time CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, gave a 2008 interview where he was asked about all the different ways in which Google impacts people’s privacy, makes immense amounts of data about your life publicly available, enables people to create an almost comprehensive profile of everything that you do simply using data made available by Google products. And when asked about Google’s effect on privacy, he said if there’s something that you’re doing that you don’t want other people to know about, maybe that’s a pretty good indication that you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

In 2009, CNET, in response to this interview, decided to do an experiment and find out everything that they could about the personal, financial and private life of Eric Schmidt, exclusively using Google products. They put together this remarkably invasive and rather embarrassing profile of him, using only those tools. And in response, Eric Schmidt did not say I’m not really bothered by this because I have nothing to hide. He was indignant about it. Threatened to sue them. And then ordered Google employees not to speak to CNET, a ban which lasted for a period of at least two years.

And every time in the last four years that I’ve gone somewhere and someone has said to me, I don’t really care about my privacy because I don’t have anything to hide, I’ve always done the same thing. I take out a sheet of paper and a pen. And I write my email address on this sheet of paper. And I give it to that person. And I say, here’s what I want you to do. When you get home, I want you to email to me all of the passwords to all of your email accounts and your social media accounts. Not just the nicer, respectable work ones with your name but all of them, so I can just basically troll through them at will and find the things that I think are interesting and then just publish them. After all, you’re not a bad person. You’re not a terrorist. You’re not a criminal. You have nothing to hide. To this day, not one person has taken me up on that offer. And the reason is that instinctively, even if with words we dismiss the value of privacy, we know its actual importance viscerally.

There are all kinds of fascinating social science and psychological studies that demonstrate that fact. That when we are acting with the possibility or with the belief that someone is watching, the range of behavioral choices we consider shrinks considerably. It’s only in the realm where you can go where you’re not being watched, do things like dissent and creativity and exploration, only in those places do those things exclusively reside. It really is central to how we, as human beings, need to live if we’re going to be free and autonomous and fulfilled human beings.

And so a world in which we allow privacy to be radically eroded, even though it may not be obvious, is a world in which we allow very crucial and fundamental aspects of our lives to be deprived and taken away from us. And I think at the very least, if that’s going to happen that ought to be the byproduct of thoughtful and reflective understanding of what privacy is and what the harms are from losing it, as opposed to something that we’re just swept into doing through excitement or fear mongering or other kinds of emotional manipulation. And that’s what I try and do, essentially, when I talk to people who work in technology, is just try and put those questions out there so that we think a lot more about them.

For downloadable pdf of this content click here.

Written by:

Zapproved LLC

Zapproved LLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.