 Let's start. Be welcome. More than two years ago, Edward Snowden's files have become public. They went public and the media, it went crazy and the public may be not so much as you may have noticed among 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 Hinz and Lina Densig from the University Cardiff explores just that. They analyzed how actually the media reacted to the revelations 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 Hinz and Lina Densig. Thank you very much. There's still a few free seats over there. Hello everybody. My name is Arne Hinz. This is Lina Densig. 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 over the past, a bit more than a year. It's called Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society State Media Citizen Relations after the Snowden leaks. It's about the implications of the Snowden leaks in four areas, news media, civil society, policy and technology. 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 is basically asked how have the British media represented the Snowden leaks and digital surveillance? The civil society part is about questions such as what is the nature of public knowledge? With regards to digital surveillance, our everyday communication practice is 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 technological possibilities of counter surveillance and resistance. And then we want to bring all this together and ask how does that redefine 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 Brier from a tech development project. We also have an advisory board with some colleagues from academia but also representatives of digital rights organizations such as Open Rights Group, Privacy International and others with 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 at today's 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're interested in studying how the British news media have represented the Snowden leaks and also digital surveillance more broadly and so we asked how our debates over surveillance constructed, what are the angles and opinions, what are the usual sources and so on. Maybe to start with kind of 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 its role for the state and 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? That's an interesting understanding of journalism and it was later retracted, it was debated quite a lot, but we see that also this view of this caution towards, publishing something like this has been quite widespread. 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 Epto 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, well, the legislation around surveillance. So, a few results. Snowden was clearly prominent in the media coverage and generally was covered using mostly in 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 taking in the stories, and so at the context of coverage, of the coverage of surveillance, the most important one here has to do, as we can see there, maybe it's probably a little bit small to read, but the most important has to do with the, with themes of terrorism, with themes of the role of the security agencies and government response. So that's been very much the context of discussing, in most media coverage, of discussing Snowden's relations 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 opinions 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 as something, thus, 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 government, 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. Right, so I'll just go briefly through some of our key findings for what we call the civil society workstream on this, which looks at two aspects. So there's the public knowledge and attitudes on the Snowden leaks and digital surveillance. And then there's a 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 a diverse range of opinions and views. So that range from high income people work in the financial center 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 organizations from large NGOs to smaller community groups, ranging from environmental groups, labor activists, anti-war activists, except the war, economic justice groups like Global Justice Now and community and civil liberty groups, such as also Cage, we spoke earlier today. And talk 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 Leagues. So for the first bit on public opinion and our focus groups, we had a range of themes, so understanding and experiences of surveillance, knowledge and opinions of Snowden Leagues, concerns with privacy and personal data, questions around online behavior 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 a lot of mix-up between these 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 metadata, 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, what people's worries about state surveillance, particularly predominantly 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 with a 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 behavior then, these concerns do manifest themselves in some changes but it's mainly in terms of sort of self-regulating behavior, not saying things that are too controversial online and so forth, rather than actually changes in terms of using different tools or different communication platforms, which wasn't prominent at all in our focus groups. And what we also saw sort of implications of this is that there was sort of an internalizing 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 actually kind of clear differences between the different demographic groups that we spoke with, meaning that some people were more comfortable saying this phrase, oh nothing to hide, nothing to fear, whereas for example when we spoke to local Muslim groups they problematized 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've phrased as a kind of surveillance realism is that people have sort of, surveillance has become normalized to such an extent that it's 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 knowledge or 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 that has come out with our research really with these focus groups is that we need to really distinguish here between public consent versus public resignation when we talk about attitudes towards surveillance, meaning that it isn't necessarily that people consent to this going on but actually have resigned to the fact that this is how society is being organized. So 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 really to explore this question around current online behavior and practices and whether there have been any changes and responses to the Snowden leaks. And again just some key findings here on this question, on these questions. So basically the activists that we spoke with are 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's 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 or invisible forms of surveillance. And also perhaps link to that then despite the of this general awareness and widespread 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 with Chelsea Manning and WikiLeaks. And importantly also there was a sort of general expectation some of these quotes sort of highlight that state surveillance goes on. This is sort of what kind 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 political activists in the UK. And perhaps also therefore or one of the reasons there hasn't been much response from the groups we spoke with anyway in terms of changing online behavior particularly not directly because of Snowden. And there are some exceptions here so for example Greenpeace did really change their communication behavior as a direct response to the Snowden leaks. And Cage I think as we heard earlier have recently also changed communication practices although at the time of our interview with them hadn't done as much as they're doing now. And predominantly however there's been very little change in online behavior and where it has taken place it's been part of a sort of a longer term consciousness of surveillance. And the kind of changes we would perhaps see more are things like face-to-face interaction. So more face-to-face interaction perhaps slightly more careful communication 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 that was expressed by 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 organizations so that somehow this contradicts this aim to be transparent and open and inclusive that somehow it would also exclude people to start to use encrypted forms of 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 organizations 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 move into more radical forms of political action 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 sort of keep the mainstream in check in that they would only surveillance becomes a worry only if you do certain types of actions. So 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 well 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 was kind of outsourced to other groups like digital rights activists or tech activists that that's what they do we're doing something else. So I think what we sort of want to suggest with that that our research seems anyway to suggest that there are some limitations with 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 as opposed 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 only 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 we finished much faster than we thought we would but anyway so basically we've had this snapshot now of sort of recent public debate and sort of wants to suggest the ways in which 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. I think that's it, we have time for questions. Good. Just questions or comments or additional information about similar projects. Please line up at the microphones so you can speak clearly your questions into the microphone please. Yeah, just the microphone in the back please. Go ahead. Hey, so do you think this lack of technical understanding of the Snowden leaks might be due to Snowden fatigue that is people getting very tired of reading the Snowden article. Another one, another one. Do you think that might have contributed to it? Can you maybe repeat the questions and if you leave the room please do so quietly because we can't understand his question. Sorry. So the question is this lack of understanding of the contents of the Snowden leaks maybe even on a basic technical level, could that something that contributed to that could that be Snowden fatigue? And you were referring to this sort of drip feed way of releasing those documents. 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. Right, okay. I don't know, do we think that that's the reason? I don't know, it didn't come out as 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 saw more information coming out through other sources and intercept and so on. But I think what we were focusing on or what we saw in the 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 the Guardian but probably most other media organizations and other newspapers. Yeah, I think there are 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 we'll just do it 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. There is a question from the internet. Yes, if Up is asking as far as he or she understood that 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? There seems to be a rhetorical question in that. Yes, should have and probably we would, well, 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 a question of how to improve that and what is the role of different types of media and alternative media and what does need to change structurally and forms of mainstream media but that is a big debate I guess. Yeah, and we should also say that we've done interviews with journalists about perhaps asking questions as to why they covered this the way that they did and obviously hopefully those interviews will reveal something more but those are still ongoing as to why this. But we've had, for example, James Paul from The Guardian who came to our conference in June and talked about some of the structural problems for journalists to cover security issues and there's quite a lot of obstacles and so forth 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 those interviews. We have time for one last question, please. Make it short. 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? In your first slides there were all of those bar charts with kind of numbers and I was interested in those numbers. Okay. I guess occurrences. Yeah, so at the beginning we showed the timeline of... Numbers? Oh, yeah. I mean, these were... Well, I'll talk into the microphone. These were the dates of the publication. That was clear. 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, there's one part of the research, 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. I'd say time is up. Thank you very much, Nino Densig, and now on the hands for your talk.