<i>music</i>

Let's start. Be welcome!

More than two years ago, Edward Snowden's
files have become public.

They went public

and the media went crazy.

And the public maybe not so much,

as you may have noticed amongst your friends
and family,

as well I did.

A lot remains the same after Snowden's revelations,

even if people are concerned about surveillance.

The following talk by Arne Hintz and Lina
Dencik from University of Cardiff explores

just that.

They analyzed how actually the media reacted
to the relations made by Edward Snowden

and they also looked at how the public,

such as journalists and other people and activists,
reacted to Edward Snowden's disclosures.

So please give a warm round of applause to
Arne Hintz and Lina Dencik. Thank you!

<i>applause</i>

Arne: Thank you very much, there are still
a few free seats over there.

Hello everybody, my name is Arne Hintz, this
is Lina Denzik.

We are both from Cardiff University, from
the school of journalism, media and cultural studies,

so not from the tech department.

We want to talk about some of the results
of a research project

that we've been working on this year and for the past...

for a bit more than a year

and it's called "Digital Citizenship and Surveillance
Society: UK State-Media-Citizen Relations

after the Snowden Leaks",

and it's about the implications of the Snowden
leaks in four areas:

News media, civil society, policy and technology

and here what we want to do is present just
a few findings from that project

and focus on two areas, the news media part
and the civil society part.

It's all focused on the UK, the country where
Cardiff University is located

so there won't be a lot of international comparisons,
not a lot about Germany and so on,

but I think maybe at the end we can maybe
draw some comparisons ourselves here in this room.

So this has been the project basically, the
title as you see it over there.

The news media part has basically asked how
the british media represented the Snowden

leaks and digital surveillance.

The society part is about questions such as:
What is the nature of public knowledge with

regards to digital surveillance?

Are everyday communication practices changing?

And how are activists affected by the revelations
of mass surveillance?

The policies part is still ongoing, it's still
being developed

and it's about the current policy and regulatory
framework of digital surveillance

and reform proposals and current reforms that
are taking place.

And the technology part is about the technological
infrastructure of surveillance

and techonological possibilities of counter-surveillance
and resistance.

And then we want to bring all this together
and ask: How does that re-define what we may

understand as digital citizenship?

The research team includes a number of people
from Cardiff University

including us, including other lecturers, professors,
staff members of Cardiff University

and a few research assistants and research
associates that we employed for this,

plus a couple of guys from Oxford and one
from Briar from a tech development project.

We also have an advisory board with some colleagues
from academia

but also representatives of digital rights
organisations, such as Open Rights Group,

Privacy International and others.

We have a project website, where you can learn
more about the project, about the background

and also some preliminary findings.

We also had a conference earlier this year,
in June, maybe some of you were there.

It was in Cardiff with some interesting speakers
to the conference

and also combined the academic and the practical
part a little bit.

So. A few glimpses of the results in these
two areas that I mentioned.

So for the media research part we were interested
in studying how the British news media have

represented the Snowden leaks and also digital
surveillance more broadly.

And so we asked: How are debates over surveillance
constructed? What are the angles and opinions?

What are usual sources? And so on.

We need to start on an anecdotal basis.

Some examples of media coverage that emerged
very quickly after the Snowden revelations,

again in the UK press, which show different
types of the coverage.

So we probably all know that the Guardian
was very instrumental in the revelations

and provided a lot of information, really
took this role of the fourth estate and of

investigative journalism quite seriously.

On the other hand, other newspapers like this
one were very critical about the Snowden revelations

and also about the Guardian for informing
people about these and running with these revelations.

And then there were others like this one,
that was a famous example.

The former editor of the Independent, actually
another liberal, middle ground, not really

left but at least not ultra conservative newspaper.

Who says "Edward Snowden's secrets may be
dangerous, I would not have published them".

Okay, can debate that, but then he says "if
MI5 warns that this is not in the public interest,

who am I to disbelieve them?".

<i>laughing</i>

That's an interesting understanding of journalism

and it was later retracted, it was debated
quite a lot.

But we see that also this caution towards
publishing something like this has been quite

wide-spread.

So what did we do?

Here's a timeline of Snowden and surveillance
related coverage in the press in this case

in the UK.

And we looked at five case studies, five moments
of coverage.

The first were the initial revelations of
Snowden.

The second the interception of communications
in foreign embassies and European Union offices

and spying on world leaders' phone communications,
such as Angela Merkel's for example.

The third was the detention of Glenn Greenwald's
partner David Miranda at Heathrow Airport

under anti-terror legislation.

Which raised debates around freedom of the
press and national security.

Then we looked at the parliamentary report
into the death of Lee Rigby.

Which was a case that was described as a terrorist
attack on a British soldier on the streets

of London.

And it led to debates around social media
companies' role in tackling terrorism.

And then finally the Charlie Hebdo attacks
in Paris,

which prompted debates around digital encryption,
freedom of speech and the resurrection of

the so-called Snooper's Charter in the UK,

the legislation around surveillance.

So a few results:

Snowden was clearly prominent in the media
coverage, and generally was covered using

mostly neutral or even positive language,

described as a whistleblower as we see
here at the bottom.

But if we look at the focus on issues around
surveillance taken in the stories

and so at the context of coverage of surveillance,
the most important one here has to do

as we can see there, probably it's a little
bit small to read.

But the most important has to do 
with themes of terrorism,

with themes of the role of security agencies
and government response.

So that's been very much the context of discussing in

most media coverage of discussing
the context of discussing Snowden revelations

and surveillance more broadly.

And that is in stark contrast to discussing
surveillance in terms of human rights, personal

privacy and freedom of the press.

In other words: rights and digital... and citizen-based perspectives on surveillance.

If we look at who was used as the sources
in these stories, we see a pattern that is

actually quite typical in media sourcing generally.

Politicians are by far the most prominent
source.

And that is not unusual at all.

But in this case it means that elite concerns
around surveillance are most prominent, not

citizen concerns.

Political sources are framing the debate and
how it is interpreted.

And so unsurprisingly then the oppinions raised
by these sources are for example, as we see

there, that surveillance should be increased

or at least is necessary, at least has to
be maintained.

That the Snowden leaks have compromised the
work of intelligence services

and that social media companies should do
more to fight terror and to increase their

own surveillance.

And so this dominant framework understands
surveillance as a valuable activity,

and one for which both intelligence services
and business actors have a responsibility.

Rather than it being primarily problematic
for citizens.

And where it is presented as problematic,
in the snooping on world leaders case study,

surveillance was seen as damaging to international
relations and therefore problematic.

And that's something that is primarily of
relevance to big players rather than ordinary

citizens.

So from these short glimpses, what we can
see, just a few preliminary conclusions,

is that yes, there was extensive and often
positive reporting on Snowden himself, in

some media at least.

But debates around surveillance are framed
by elites, rather than citizens

and this elite-centered structure of news
coverage means that the consequences and the

extent particularly of mass surveillance of
citizens

are largely invisible in media coverage.

There's a strong framing on national security
and so on,

but there is quite insufficient information
on the practices and implications of surveillance

for normal citizens.

And so the issues of mass surveillance that
were actually so central in Snowden's revelations,

remain relatively invisible in these debates,

apart from perhaps the Guardian coverage.

And so we could say that media justify and
normalize current surveillance practices,

and that discussions about individual rights
and human security are structurally discouraged.

That is the media part

Lina: so i'll just go briefly through some
of our key findings for what we call the civil

society work stream on this.

Which looks at two aspects, so there is the
public knowledge and attitudes on the Snowden

leaks and digital surveillance.

And then there's the second part which is
particularly to do with responses amongst

political activists.

And for the first part, the public opinion
research, we did a number of focus groups across

different demographics in the UK,

in order to get us a diverse range of 
opinions and views.

So that ranges from sort of high income people
working the financial centre to local young

Muslim groups within Cardiff itself.

So a different range and different groups
of people.

And then for the research on the activist
responses we did a number of interviews with

different groups and organisations,

from large NGOs to smaller community groups.

Ranging from environmental groups, labour
activists anti-war activists like "Stop the

War",

economic justice groups like "Global Justice
Now", and community

and civil liberty groups such as also "CAGE",
who spoke earlier today.

And talked with them.

So there's particularly groups that weren't
digital rights activists or tech activists

specifically,

to try and get an understanding of how other
political activists view this issue in particular

in response to the Snowden leaks.

So with the first bit on public opinion in
our focus groups we had a range of themes.

Understanding and experiences of surveillance,

knowledge and opinions on Snowden leaks,

concerns with privacy and personal data,

questions around online behaviour and practices

and attitudes towards intelligence services.

So just a couple of key points from these
focus groups:

First of all there was particularly low knowledge
of who Edward Snowden was,

and even less knowledge of what the content
of the leaks were.

And there was a lot of confusion in discussions
with Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks

really,

in terms of how people had come about this
story.

And there were a lot of mix-up between those
different stories.

In terms of actually understandings of surveillance
all of this state surveillance isn't really

isolated in how people speak about it.

It overlaps also with questions of corporate
surveillance and also peer surveillance or

employer surveillance and so forth.

So a lot of concerns are not necessarily about
state surveillance per se and it's difficult

to isolate this as a particular issue.

And also when it comes to what constitutes
surveillance,

the initial responses would be things like
CCTV and sort of these types of things were

seen as more kind of real forms of surveillance.

But on the other hand it was very clear that
people felt that the collection of data

and also including the collection of meta
data, so distinguishing also from it being

not about content, constitutes surveillance.

So that was generally how people felt about
what surveillance actually means.

In terms then of concerns around this, people's
worries about state surveillance in particular

but dominantly concerns lack of transparency
around it.

So a lack of transparency around what is being
collected, but also how it's being used and

what it's being used for,

and also what the regulatory framework is
that's in place surrounding it.

And also concerns over the lack of knowledge
or understanding of how to actually opt out,

or resist or circumvent collection of data.

And in terms of sort of changes in online
behaviour then,

these concerns do manifest themselves in some
changes, but it's mainly in terms of sort

of self-regulating behaviour,

not saying things that are too controversial
online and so forth,

rather than actually changes in using different
tools or different communication platforms,

which wasn't prominent at all in our focus
groups.

And what we also saw as sort of implications
of this is that there was sort of an internalising

of some of these justifications

that have been very prominent also in the
media, particularly this phrase: "nothing

to hide, nothing to fear".

Although in this case there was clear 
differences between the different demographic

groups that we spoke with.

Meaning that some people were more comfortable
saying this phrase "nothing to hide, nothing

to fear",

whereas for example when we spoke to local
Muslim groups they problematised this position

much more.

So there is definitely variation here in terms
of that,

but there is a sense in which some of
these justifications have been internalized.

And actually what we've seen is what we phrase
this as a kind of surveillance realism,

is that surveillance has become normalized
to such an extent,

it is difficult for people to really understand
or imagine a society in which surveillance

doesn't take place.

Which might also relate to some of these questions
around a lack of understanding of how to actually

resist this or opt out from this.

So i think a key point that we wanted to make
with our research with these focus groups,

is

that we need to re-distinguish here between
public consent versus public resignation, when

we talk about attitudes towards surveillance,

meaning that it isn't necessary that people
consent to this going on

but actually have resigned to the fact that
this is how society is being organised.

To then move on to interviews with activists.

We also had similar questions here,

so understanding and experiences of surveillance,

and knowledge and opinions of Snowden leaks
and attitudes towards state surveillance.

And then we also wanted to explore this question
around current online behaviour and practices

and whether there had been any changes and
responses to the Snowden leaks.

And again just some key findings here on these
questions:

So basically the activists that we spoke with
were generally very aware of surveillance,

but again it was visible and physical forms
of surveillance that were more prominent in

how activists spoke about it.

And this is particularly and perhaps particularly
in the UK a context,

because there is a very troublesome history
in the UK with police infiltration into activist

groups,

which has really impacted the activist scene
quite a lot within the UK.

And often this was how the activists we spoke
with would talk about surveillance first and

foremost,

rather than about these more virtual forms
and visible forms of surveillance.

And also perhaps linked to that then despite
this general awareness and wide-spread experiences

of surveillance,

the activists we spoke with didn't know a
great deal of detail about the Snowden leaks

particularly.

And again there was this confusion with Chelsea
Manning and Wikileaks.

And importantly also there was a sort of general
expectation some of these quotes sort of highlight

that,

that state surveillance goes on, this is sort
of expected.

And it's confirmed for activists when police
are often there,

when they've organized events or protests
and demonstrations,

or when activities have been intercepted.

And so the Snowden leaks in themselves and
the realities of mass surveillance

came as little surprise to the political activists
in the UK.

And perhaps also therefore or one other reason
there hasn't been much response from the groups

we spoke with anyway,

in terms of changing online behaviour.

Particularly not directly because of Snowden.

And there are some exceptions here,

so for example Greenpeace did really change
their communication behaviour

as a direct response to the Snowden leaks.

And CAGE i think as we heard earlier had recently
also changed communication practices,

although at the time of our interview with
them

they hadn't done as much as they're doing
now.

Predominantly however there has been very
little change in online behaviour,

and where it has taken place it's been part
of a sort of longer term consciousness of

surveillance.

And the kind of changes we have seen more
are things like face to face interaction.

So more face to face interaction, perhaps
slightly more careful online communication.

But in terms of encryption:

We found little use of encryption again although
with exceptions with some of the groups,

but partly this was due to questions of convenience,

and a perceived lack of technical ability.

Which I think are arguments that we're quite
familiar with, when it comes to questions around

this.

But it was also related to a particular kind
of rationale thas was expressed in some of

the interviews that we did,

that somehow using encrypted software is about
being hidden or closed in some ways,

whereas activists strive for open and transparent
organisations.

So that somehow contradicts this aim to be
transparent and open and inclusive.

That somehow it also excludes people to start
to use encrypted communication.

And linked to that also many of the activists
we spoke with expressed the notion

that their activities and their role in society
didn't constitute a need to really worry about

surveillance.

So despite being aware of surveillance and
expecting it to go on,

there was a sense in which some of the organisations
here

perceived themselves as fairly mainstream,

and therefore kind of safe.

And didn't really need to worry about surveillance.

And really that surveillance would only really
need to be something to worry about,

if they moved into more radical forms of politics
and action,

whatever that might be.

So in some ways we might think of this as
kind of it acts to somewhat keep the mainstream

in check,

in that there would only surveillance becomes
a variable only if you do certain kinds of

actions.

So and therefore also there wasn't really
in terms of sort of questions around digital

rights and advocacy work around policies,

and policy around privacy and so forth,

wasn't something that the activists we spoke
with, most of them anyway,

didn't see that as something that directly
featured on their agenda.

So it wasn't really something that they were
so concerned with themselves,

but rather that type of activism is kind of
outsourced to other groups like digital rights

activists or tech activists.

That that's what they do, we are doing something
else.

So I think what we sort of want to suggest
with that is that our research seems anyway

to suggest,

that there are some limitations around resistance
to surveillance,

in that this resistance seems to remain within
the silos of only certain types of actors.

So we're sort of asking: How can we then move
beyond that?

And start thinking of surveillance in terms
of perhaps data justice,

or somehow thinking of how surveillance connects
or resistance to surveillance connects

to broader social and economic justice agendas.

And of course some of this is already happening,

and some of it has been discussed here at
this congress.

So for example how does data collection lead
to discrimination?

Or how does it come to suppress dissent?

But also how does surveillance relate to working
conditions and workers' rights for example,

or how does it link to inequality and poverty?

So I suppose our research suggests that we
need to think about

that if encryption and technical solutions
and discussions around digital rights such

as privacy

remain really within certain circles and perhaps
events like this and so forth,

how can we get it to resonate with a broader
public in some ways?

So — wow, we finished much faster than we
thought we would.

But anyway. So basically we've had a snapshot
now of sort of recent public debate,

and sort of ones that suggest that we might
need to think about how to connect concerns

with surveillance,

that are discussed in places like this to
other issues in order to resonate with a broader

public.

And that's it, we have time for questions

<i>applause</i>

A: Ask questions or comments, or additional
information about some other projects.

Angel: Please, line up at the microphones, so you
can speak clearly your questions into the

microphone, please.

The microphone in the back, please.

Go ahead.

Question: Hey. So do you think this lack of
technical understanding of the Snowden leaks

might be due to Snowden fatigue, that is people
getting really tired of reading a Snowden

article?

And another one and another one: Did you know you might have contributed to it?

Angel: Can you maybe repeat the question?

And if you leave the room, please do so quietly,

because we can't understand his question.

Q: Sorry. So the question is: This lack of understanding of the content of the Snowden leaks, maybe

on a basic technical level,

could that something that contributed to that,
could that be Snowden fatigue?

L: And you're referring to this sort of drip-feed
way of releasing those documents...

Q: Not necessarily criticizing the way it
was released, but there was a hell of a lot

of content and a lot of people got bored of
it.

L: Right. okay. <i>mumbling</i>

A: There's a bit of that I think probably
that we see

and The Guardian at some point stopped their
coverage or releasing more information

and then we've saw more information coming
out through other sources and Intercept and

so on.

But I think what we are focusing on or what
we saw in media coverage particularly,

were some deficiencies I think in the media
coverage,

and we would create this link mainly between
the lack of knowledge

and the deficiencies in the media coverage
per se.

Not necessarily in The Guardian, but probably
most other media organizations and other newspapers.

L: I think there's different views on that
because a lot of people feel like it's stayed

in the public debate

or in the public realm, because there was a
continuation of revelations that came after

each other,

rather than just doing this data dump thing
and you know just doing everything in one

go.

So I think we will probably have been able
to say the same thing if it was done differently

as well.

Angel: There is a question from the internet.

Q: Yes. Ifup is asking as far as he or she
understood the people were not informed pretty

well on what really was revealed.

Wouldn't it have been the task of the media
to inform them?

And how could they have been done better?

L: This seems to be a rhetorical question
in that they didn't... yes

A: Well yes, they should have.

Ideally we would think that it is the task
of the media to inform,

we saw that some media did inform, others
did do pretty much the opposite.

Then there's the question how to improve that.

And what is the role of different types of
media and alternative media

and what does need to change structurally
in forms of mainstream media?

But that is a big debate.

L: And we should also say that we've done
interviews with journalists, asking questions

as to why they covered this the way that they
did.

And hopefully those interviews will reveal
something more,

but those are still ongoing.

But we've had for example James Ball from
The Guardian who came to our conference in

June,

and talked about some of the structural problems
with a couple of journalists who cover security

issues.

And there's quite a lot of obstacles and so
for them to do that in a critical and investigatory

way.

So I think those are the issues that we want
to explore when we find out more through these

those interviews.

Angel: We have time for one last question,
please make it short

Q: Hello. That's better

I'm not surprised to be honest,

we have seen a similar thing by John Oliver,
so Last Week Tonight, I can only recommend

that scene.

So the question is only about what do we talk
about,

so can everybody relate to that?

I have just one question to the first slides
you have shown

the numbers: What do they reveal?

A: Numbers?

Q: In your first slides there were all of
those bar charts with kind of numbers and

I was interested in those numbers.

A: Okay.

Q: I guess occurences.

A: Yes, so at the beginning we showed the
time line of...

L: Numbers of mumbling

A: Ah yes. These were the dates of the publication
and that is the volume of publication

again: Looking at the press in this case,

looking at not just The Guardian, but all
kinds of other newspapers.

That's one part of the research and there
will be another part of the research that

you will find information about this on the
website,

which is about broadcasting, which is about
TV and radio coverage.

But so far what we saw is that there is a
fairly similar picture

in terms of how these curves developed,

and also in terms of the content of the coverage.

Angel: I'd say time is up.

Thank you very much Lina Dencik and Arne Hintz
for your talk!

<i>applause</i>

<i>music</i>

subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
Join, and help us!