Flock Cameras, Meta Glasses and the Surveillance Backlash

Flock Safety, the company that makes the automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras used by over 7,000 U. S. law enforcement agencies, is facing a public backlash against surveillance tech. Nearly half of Americans surveyed in an August poll said they opposed ALPRs. The opposition is part of a long-simmering mistrust of big tech and concerns over privacy and data security. Kara speaks with a panel of experts about how the backlash to Flock and street surveillance cameras squares with the boom in wearable tech and AI-powered smart devices. Plus, they discuss – and question – the usual framing of a trade-off between privacy and security. Jason Koebler is a co-founder of 404 Media. He and his colleagues have been reporting on Flock for the past few years. Dr. Safiya Umoja Noble is the David O. Sears Presidential Endowed Chair of Social Sciences and Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the Director of the Center on Resilience & Digital Justice and is the recipient of a MacArthur “Genius Grant.” She’s also the author of Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. Victoria Song is a senior reviewer for The Verge and author of the Optimizer newsletter. She specializes in emerging technologies in wearables, health and fitness and XR. Questions? Comments? Email us at [email protected] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  People want to protect their babies. They want to believe that they're giving their children the very best.

• 0:05Kara Swisher?

  Also, you cannot optimize naps. Sorry.

• 0:07Speaker 00

  You really can't.

• 0:08Kara Swisher?

  You can't. And also, babies aren't doing many crimes.

• 0:12Speaker 00

  Leave the babies out of it.

• 0:13Kara Swisher?

  No crime in babies. And if they are, we'll take care of that one baby. A very clever baby.

• 0:30Kara Swisher?

  Hi, everyone. From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. Flock Safety, the company that makes the automated license plate reader, or ALPR, cameras used by over 7,000 law enforcement agencies across the country, is on the receiving end of a public backlash against surveillance tech. According to the Washington Post, nearly half of Americans surveyed in an August poll said they opposed ALPRs. But the opposition is part of a long simmering mistrust of big tech and concerns over privacy and data security. Today, we're talking with a panel of experts about how the backlash to Flock and street surveillance cameras squares with the boom in wearable tech and AI-powered smart devices,

• 1:15Kara Swisher?

  and what's at stake in the trade-off between privacy and security. This is one of the most important topics of the day around tech, is what these companies are collecting, what they're doing with it, and what you need to know to protect yourself. You are a guinea pig to these companies, who are only interested in shareholder value. They are not interested in you. They're not interested in protecting you. They're interested in using you, because they are, at heart, rapacious information thieves. This is a word Walt Mossberg used decades ago, and it remains even more true in the age of AI, where they need more information to serve their corporate purposes. Jason Koebler is the co-founder of 404 Media. He and his colleagues have been reporting on Flock for the past few years, along with

• 2:00Kara Swisher?

  a lot of the other amazing reporting they do at 404 Media. Dr. Sophia Umoja Noble is the David O. Sears Presidential Endowed Chair of Social Sciences and a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the Director of the Center on Resilience and Digital Justice and is the recipient of a MacArthur Genius Grant. She's also the author of Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. Victoria Song is a senior reviewer for The Verge and the author of the Optimizer Newsletter. She specializes in emerging technologies in wearables, health, fitness, and XR. Our expert question today comes from one of my favorite journalists, cybersecurity expert, and author Nicole Pearlroth. So, stick around.

• 2:52Speaker 02

  When fall comes back around, there's a sense of a reset. And new pieces from Lululemon's fall drop are an inspiration to push your goals and elevate your routines. As your calendar fills, easy-to-layer styles meet the demands of your day. And as you challenge yourself to try even more, versatile sets transition with you. The Lululemon fall lineup brings new levels of comfort and confidence, whether you're starting something fresh or starting something over. Check out the latest arrivals in store and on lululemon.com now.

• 3:22Speaker 03

  Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile, with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.

• 3:43Speaker 04

  Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

• 3:52Speaker 05

  The real cost of a break-in isn't your valuables. It's the feeling that your home stopped being safe. SimpliSafe keeps danger away from your family with three layers of protection. One, smart AI cameras and live US-based agents help stop intruders before they break in. Two, we sound the alarm at points of entry. Three, our agents request emergency response. Plans starting around $1 a day. Right now, get 60% off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com/spotify. Outdoor deterrence plans start at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com/licenses for alarm license information.

• 4:25Kara Swisher?

  Jason, Sophia, and Victoria, thank you for coming on On.

• 4:29Speaker 06

  Thanks so much for having me.

• 4:30Speaker 00

  Thanks for having me.

• 4:31Speaker 07

  Thanks for having me, too.

• 4:32Kara Swisher?

  So, many of us, obviously willingly, share personal data with technology every day, all the time, from smartphone apps, smartwatches, fitness rings, doorbell cameras. Yet, Flock Safety's automated license plate reader, which has been around a while, these cameras, have sparked remarkable public backlash. Given how embedded data-collecting tech is in our lives, I'd love for each to talk about why Flock has become the breaking point, and what's the fear or concern at the heart of it, because everyone's been carrying around since smartphones, surveillance devices, for a long time. Jason, you go first, then Sophia, and then Victoria.

• 5:10Speaker 06

  Yeah, it's a great question, and it's one that I've thought about a lot recently. I think that Flock has become this avatar for people to push back against surveillance, that they know that they're subjected to. I think that a lot of the things that you mentioned are consumer products where people are getting some sort of trade-off, like they feel like they can't necessarily opt out of having a smartphone or opt out of social media. But here, they have these, like, very public cameras that are showing up in their neighborhoods. They're driving around, and they're saying, what is this? And there's actually a place for them to push back against it, which is their local city council meetings. I think it's very hard for an individual person or a small group of people to push back against Meta or Google or, you know, these big tech giants.

• 5:53Speaker 06

  But you can show up at a city council and say, what are these cameras? I don't want them, and yell at the mayor, yell at the city council.

• 6:00Kara Swisher?

  Right, a lot like data centers, the way they're articulating AI through data centers, their issues with AI in a lot of ways, because they're physical, right, standing in their communities. Sophia?

• 6:10Speaker 00

  Yeah, I think that's true. Jason's got it right. And also, we see them disproportionately installed around our cities. So, I think, you know, these are, again, very clear signals about who is the target of surveillance in a much more direct and visible way. The other thing is that, you know, this kind of promise of security and surveillance, which is the way they're sold, but of course, you know, these broken windows theories, these ideas that, you know, if we kind of put visible improvement into our communities, it will produce crime. We actually see that these are used to ensnare and entrap people, and that is actually how people relate to them.

• 6:56Speaker 00

  In some ways, it's like the overpolicing that Black and Brown communities and working class and poor communities have been used to, only now it's permanent, and it's actually difficult to evade.

• 7:08Kara Swisher?

  Right. Victoria?

• 7:09Speaker 07

  Yeah, I think it's basically to what Jason's point was, like, these consumer devices that you give up your privacy for, you're getting a personal benefit out of it. With a smartwatch, you are getting health data, or, you know, these tech ads are always saying that the Apple Watch is going to save your life, or something like that. With the Meta glasses, you might get cute footage of a pet or your kids. With the Flock camera, you know that there is no benefit to you. You're just being watched, and it kind of makes you feel like a subject instead of the person in control. So I think that's a big aspect of it. And then another aspect is I think there's an increased amount of distrust for the person behind the other side of the camera than in previous years.

• 7:52Speaker 07

  Like, we used to believe that tech was going to improve everything, and now with the backlash against AI, with the backlash against all of these devices that want to know an increasing amount about you, I just think people are just increasingly distrustful of those things, and those things are combining together.

• 8:09Kara Swisher?

  So, Jason, you and your team at 404 Media have been covering Flock since 2024, and your reporting prompted congressional inquiry of the company last year. 404 reporting shows that Flock cameras have been used to help ICE and surveil No Kings protests. Police say Flock camera networks have enabled them to solve thousands of crimes, including car thefts, missing persons, and abducted children. Explain to people what Flock cameras do, how long they've been around, and how they're connected to the network, and how the data is stored.

• 8:36Speaker 06

  Yeah, so Flock cameras are automatic license plate reader cameras, which is a technology that's been around for more than a decade now. But what Flock did was, they essentially networked these together using artificial intelligence. That is the big differentiating factor of Flock from its competitors, where they put them at intersections or on the street, and when you drive by, it essentially takes a photo of your car and adds it to a database that can be queried by the police at any point, and there's no warrant requirement for that. But basically, whereas in the past, if a police department had these ALPR cameras, they could only search the cameras in that individual town. Right now, Flock is in 40% of the United States, and in many cases, cops are able

• 9:19Speaker 06

  to search not just the 15 cameras or 20 cameras that are in their town, but thousands in their state, or more than 100,000 across the entire country. And so, you know, it's a very diverse country, where the local needs are different in different places. And I think what happened was, cities were signing up for this, thinking, oh, we're going to use this to find missing children or stolen cars. And they woke up one day and realized that it was being used by cops four states over to search for undocumented immigrants, or to search for a woman who had an abortion, or by cops to stalk exes, things like this. And I think that's part of the backlash, is that I think a lot of cities entered these agreements with Flock without sort of understanding--

• 10:01Kara Swisher?

  Understanding that they'd be part of a network, right?

• 10:03Speaker 06

  Exactly.

• 10:04Kara Swisher?

  And the data is stored how long?

• 10:05Speaker 06

  Well, it was 30 days. Flock has recently made some revisions, where they're going to recommend that it's stored for seven days at a time. That is not mandatory, I believe, but that they're sort of pushing cops to have a seven-day retention period.

• 10:19Kara Swisher?

  Right, but it doesn't mean people couldn't copy the material, correct?

• 10:23Speaker 06

  That, and then also, I mean, you could query it kind of over and over again over time, yeah.

• 10:27Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, absolutely. And the company's responded to the reports of abuse, and the guardrails, this is only a shorter data timeframe, or?

• 10:34Speaker 06

  Well, they've done a few things, and I think that's the, that's the big thing, is that Flock built this network by sort of going town to town, city to city, saying, you know, buy our technology. A lot of these were pitched as pilot programs or were bought using police discretionary funds, meaning it didn't go through like a formal city council approval process. In some cases, it did, but I think a lot of people woke up one day and said, what are these cameras? When did they get here? Like, how did this all occur? And there have been all of these cases of abuse, and Flock has made some revisions. They've, you know, tried to reduce the length of time that the data is retained. They've tried to do like automatic auditing for anomalous searches, meaning if a cop is searching the same license plate over and over and over again, that might mean

• 11:19Speaker 06

  that they are stalking someone. But what happened was the company didn't anticipate these problems ahead of time. And so it's fixing it now, and now it's saying, what's the problem? Like, why are you mad at us?

• 11:30Kara Swisher?

  Right. Well, it reminds you of Facebook. Like, I didn't know people were going to do that. Amazon's Ring, one of the largest home security camera companies in the US, has been criticized in the past for its relationship with law enforcement, and the company ended its partnership with Flock earlier this year. Ring is now updating its technology, aiming to prevent third parties from viewing customers' home security footage without their consent. Victoria, is this latest move just a response to Flock-induced surveillance anxiety, or is something else happening?

• 11:58Speaker 07

  I think it's just a lot of different companies at the same time are kind of dealing with this. Like, I just saw the Apple event yesterday, and, you know, the first thing they did was they were talking about privacy and how that relates to the new Apple Watch audio intelligence features. And I really feel that a lot of that messaging was in response to the backlash, not only from Flock, but also from the meta glasses that have been around, people calling those pervert glasses and everything. So I do think that, by and large, because we're moving into AI, being pervasive in our lives, and AI only really works if it knows everything about you. And so these companies are hungry to learn more about us from all of our devices.

• 12:42Speaker 07

  It kind of creates this new tension that people are aware of, like, oh, AI is coming for my job. AI is also coming for my personal data. AI is coming for every aspect of my life. And so, you know, you have a pretty big public backlash against it. And the companies have this, you know, incentive to push that on you and to kind of lull you into a sense of like, no, no, no. Well, we care about your privacy, but, you know, after decades of feeling like, no, you don't care about our privacy, it's a little too little, too late.

• 13:11Kara Swisher?

  Absolutely. We'll get into meta glasses later, by the way. The technical term is creeper glasses, not pervert glasses. But Flock's mission, according to the company, is to, quote, "eliminate crime with a principled framework that protects privacy and promotes objectivity." Sophia, given what you know about algorithmic bias, which we'll get more into in a moment, and the way these systems are built, what do you make of this statement?

• 13:33Speaker 00

  Yeah, I mean, I think that the underlying logics of so many of these systems is about using historical data to determine where hotspots are of concern. And of course, we know that communities of color, black communities in particular, have been overpoliced. In fact, the invention of policing is really about the monitoring of black people in this country, all the way back to the kind of origin stories of the slave trade and the practice of enslavement, the system of enslavement in the United States. And so when you think about the kind of historical data that is used, and this is, you know, predates Flock and Ring with software like PredPol,

• 14:16Speaker 00

  we know that using these kinds of systems to predict where crime might happen is really about trying to contain and control different kinds of people and communities. And that has been historically kind of around racial discrimination and redlining and containment. So, you know, I see these as kind of a newer generation of these kinds of technologies. Again, you see them overrepresented and used to predict where crime might take place. And usually, that's about particular types of crime as well.

• 14:59Kara Swisher?

  The past information should base your future choices in that, you know, more black people are in jail, therefore, they must be more criminal, which is not true. It's just they're more arrested. That's different, which is a different thing.

• 15:12Speaker 00

  So if you have more arrests in certain communities, then you're going to have algorithms that are going to predict to go there to do more policing and more watching.

• 15:21Kara Swisher?

  So Jason, 404 reports that while many Flock cameras are designed to track license plates, the company's AI-enabled Condor cameras, God, these names they pick are just astonishing, track people. Where are these cameras deployed, and how are they being used?

• 15:33Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, I think this is a really important thing because Flock has spent a lot of the last month sort of saying, no, we just take static pictures of license plates. We're not tracking people, which, of course, if you're tracking cars, you are inherently tracking people. But Flock also has this entire software layer called Flock OS that allows cops to pipe in footage from any of their surveillance cameras, whether that's a Flock-owned camera or another one. And so they have these Condor cameras, which are PTZ cameras, which is pan-tilt zoom, meaning they're video cameras, high-def, that can, you know, pan-tilt and zoom in. They actually exposed some of these to the internet late last year. And so I went and walked in front of some of them in Bakersfield, California. And basically, like, these cameras, they zoomed in on me

• 16:17Speaker 06

  as I was walking my dog across the street, because they detect people. They are on bike paths in suburban Atlanta. They're at street fairs. They are not just on public roads, but also at pools, at, you know, community centers, on pedestrian walkways, things like this. And it all sort of pipes into this Flock OS system that cops can monitor in real time. It's all designed to kind of pair with their license plate product and that sort of thing.

• 16:44Kara Swisher?

  Right, so it's not just that. It's they want to, they want to look at everything, essentially. They want constant surveillance, essentially. So I just spoke with, speaking of that, tech executive and investor Chris Larson, who I'm sure you all know. He funded a surveillance network in San Francisco that's been credited with lowering crime in the city. It was an actual problem. He says he understands concerns about surveillance. Here is a clip.

• 17:05Speaker 06

  I totally get it. I think this is going to be the issue of the day, though, because it's a trade-off always, public safety and privacy. And San Francisco's really good on this, right? So they're not just doing surveillance and looking everywhere and trying to see if somebody's doing something wrong. It's when you get a report of a smash-and-grab incident or a strong-arm robbery, then a drone is going to be sent over there. That's what they do, but I get it. You know, people are still uncomfortable because it could change.

• 17:33Kara Swisher?

  So at what point do you think the potential harms and abuses of surveillance tech outweigh the benefits? Victoria, and then Sophia.

• 17:40Speaker 07

  I mean, one problem I have is the idea that these are infallible and accurate. They're not. Like, I think there was a case with a Flock camera where a woman was thrown for 13 days in jail when she was innocent, and she had receipts. And they were like, no, no, no. This system basically said you were it. And so this whole premise of that you're trading off your privacy for your security and your safety is based on the idea that these systems are infallible and accurate, and it's always going to catch the right person, and that's just not true. And so, you know, I just have a real problem with this trade-off being so one-to-one in these tech guys' mind.

• 18:20Kara Swisher?

  Sophia?

• 18:22Speaker 00

  Yeah, I mean, picking right up on what Victoria's saying, and just to take it deeper, we actually know that when these facial recognition systems are deployed to people of color, they are less accurate. In fact, they are most accurate when white male faces are depicted and are captured, and they have the least efficacy on black women's faces. And you can kind of go across that racial continuum to see the way in which, in fact, people have been wrongly incarcerated. And we have a lot of research now on the lack of reliability of these kinds of cameras. So, you know, this idea that we can scientifically somehow solve these problems through surveillance is really untrue.

• 19:05Speaker 00

  I mean, there are many reasons also why we have smash-and-grab in cities and why we have crime in cities that aren't about because we don't have the perfect surveillance state. And so I think that, you know, the question is really about the underlying causes, the root causes, rather than making an incredible amount of money off of drones and Flock cameras using the pretext of crime to do it.

• 19:28Kara Swisher?

  Exactly. We should know that Flock told 404 Media that its products do not have facial recognition. It has no facial recognition technology in development. Atlanta, where Flock is based, is one of the most surveilled cities in America. But local news reporting suggests the number of crimes people consider solved does not meaningfully increase despite an increase in the cameras. That's according to data collected by the FBI. Jason, how should we evaluate the efficacy of surveillance cameras based on that data? Because in some ways, right, look, if some robbery is happening, and a drone can see it, and the police could get there faster and more efficiently, not the worst idea in the world.

• 20:03Speaker 06

  Yeah, I think that's the crux of the issue, or sort of where I've gotten myself to at this point, where, right now, it's become a battle of the anecdotes, where it's like, Flock cameras have been used to surveil immigrants at the behest of ICE. They have been used to, as we discussed, surveil a woman who had a self-administered abortion. But then Flock will say, well, it was used to save this missing child. It was used to find this murderer, that sort of thing. I think what's really hard to do is to determine the actual causes of crime or a crime increase or reduction. It's like, we live in a very complex society with all sorts of socioeconomic factors that lead to a crime happening or not, or a crime being solved or not. And so Flock has sort of repeatedly picked anecdotes,

• 20:46Speaker 06

  as well as, like, they paid for a study a few years ago that said that they were responsible for solving 10% of all crime in the United States, which is an absurd claim. And also, I spoke to the researchers who did that and said, this is not what we actually said. So it's sort of like, pick your scientist, pick your anecdote, that sort of thing. I think, for me, the big issue with this is that this technology network has been built out by a private company without the sort of robust public discussion that we're having right now. And now that we're having the public discussion, I mean, very, like, everyone is talking about Flock. It's a huge topic on social media. It's huge at every city council meeting.

• 21:30Speaker 06

  The companies and the police are saying, what, do you love criminals? Do you love crime? Like, how could you want to take this down? And I think it's just something where there was not the initial sort of due diligence done before deploying this sort of technology.

• 21:44Kara Swisher?

  Very much like data centers, NDAs, just let's build them. Let's not tell you about these things. It's a very, it's a similar tactic by a lot of these companies. Let's get it out there. And then by the time they're out there, you know, ask for forgiveness rather than permission, essentially. We'll be back in a minute.

• 22:09Speaker 04

  Whenever fall comes back around, it always feels like a fresh start. This year, I've been layering in some styles from the new Lululemon fall drop because the weather is shifting, and I find I have to be ready for the entire day and not just one part of it. Lululemon's fall line has some really versatile transitional pieces, so I can just wake up, throw on a matching set, add a jacket or a fleece, and head out, knowing that I'll feel comfortable enough to go wherever the day takes me. Check out the new fall arrivals in store and online now at lululemon.com.

• 22:38Speaker 05

  The real cost of a break in isn't your valuables. It's the feeling that your home stopped being safe. SimpliSafe keeps danger away from your family with three layers of protection. One, smart AI cameras and live US-based agents help stop intruders before they break in. Two, we sound the alarm at points of entry. Three, our agents request emergency response. Plans starting around $1 a day. Right now, get 60% off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com/spotify. Outdoor deterrence plans start at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com/licenses for alarm license information.

• 23:09Speaker 03

  Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. The message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.

• 23:30Speaker 04

  Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

• 23:39Kara Swisher?

  Let's take a step back and talk about how bias is woven into the tech, behind the cameras and throughout tech more broadly. Sylvia, your book, Algorithms of Oppression, examines how algorithms are neither neutral nor objective, as they say they are. You studied Google Search at the time and related research. Computer scientists Timnit, Gebrew, and Joy Bulimweeny, who both of whom I've interviewed many times, found racial and gender biases in AI and facial recognition software. Break it down for us. How exactly are the stereotypes built into the AI training data? To me, it's the old computer thing, garbage in, garbage out. But talk a little bit about that.

• 24:16Speaker 00

  Yeah, sure. I mean, I've been on the case since 2010. You know, kind of first publishing about this in 2012. And I will say that back then, even the word "algorithms" was not a part of our everyday lexicon. It just wasn't for everyday people of the way it is now. And we think of these technologies as being purely about math, mathematical computation. And the systems designers, the software engineers themselves, still want to hold on to these ideas. But the truth is that if you take something like, in the context of a search engine, trying to index the web, and you use something like hyperlinking

• 24:59Speaker 00

  as a way to signal what's important. If this website is, you know, linking or pointing to this website, and enough of that, those kinds of things are happening, then that means it must be credible and legitimate, so it goes up in the page rank. And, you know, what you have is a massive network of computers and websites that can be optimized by those who have the most money. So in the case of the study that I did, I found that when you did queries on black women, black girls, Latina girls, Asian girls, you know, the majority of their representation, misrepresentation of them was pornography. So you couldn't get a fair representation

• 25:44Speaker 00

  for certain communities when you did search. And part of that is because the porn industry was able to optimize those keywords more powerfully than any black women or girls or Asian or Latina girls could do. And so you have this kind of tension between thinking about ad tech, where industries that have a vested interest in trying to kind of surface what they want to the top of the pile is in play. But you also have designers who are not testing and not thinking about certain ideas in certain communities, certainly of a social nature. And so they also design technologies that are incredibly easy to manipulate.

• 26:27Speaker 00

  And of course, we've seen this even in the case of, back then, when I was studying, again, 15 years ago. If you did keyword searches on Jews, you would get Holocaust denial sites, antisemitic sites, you know, right there in the first page and the first couple of hits. So the way in which these things happen is you have the convergence of ad tech, people and actors, bad actors, who can optimize content with what we call the metadata, the description about the websites, along with being able to pay more to Google to optimize their content. They're willing to pay to have more visibility. You have minoritized people who cannot compete with that. And then you have an overlay of an idea

• 27:12Speaker 00

  that what's happening here is neutral and objective. And you have this kind of as a cultural overlay where people relate to it, right?

• 27:20Kara Swisher?

  Right, right, right. Because most of those people have financial incentives, the porn industry particularly.

• 27:25Speaker 00

  But also other industries, too. I mean, you know, if you think about this incredibly flawed, and of course, racial stereotypes and gender stereotypes, misogyny are also a huge part of the internet. So if you are indexing the internet and you have no standard or value by which to evaluate, let's say, evidence-based research against a subreddit that's, you know, a neo-Nazi thread or a misogynist thread or something in the manosphere, you actually put those things all up equal to each other and that level of engagement.

• 27:55Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, yeah. I once had an argument with Larry Page about, he said, "All news is the same." I go, "The New York Times is not the same as the National Enquirer." You do know that. Like, it was a weird, like, well, just put them all up. And I'm like, "No, because you're then waiting the National Enquirer." It was an astonishing conversation. I'll never forget it. Victoria, you recently wrote about Meta's smart glass rollout. Again, another product they had not thought about or done any anticipation of any possible consequences, and said the company was playing its cards all wrong. First, explain the controversy on Meta's facial recognition software internally called NameTag. What are some of the biggest privacy issues and how has the company responded? And I will note, yesterday, Meta tried to give me a pair of Ray-Bans. I have a pair, but I was like, "And no,

• 28:39Kara Swisher?

  I don't want any more of them." But talk a little bit, just so people understand the issues. And, you know, the good applications seem, to me, creepy, but possibly delightful.

• 28:49Speaker 07

  Yeah, so NameTag, you know, it wasn't a thing that Meta put out there. There was a New York Times investigation that found that this internal document from Meta, where they were saying, "Oh, we'll roll out this facial recognition feature" at a time where privacy advocates are distracted by political turmoil. And so, you know, everyone latched on to that, and it was like, "Excuse me, what? Like, you clearly don't have great intentions there." And, you know, 404 has done great reporting about spotting these Meta glasses on Customs and Border Patrol agents. And so a lot of people were like, "Oh, so you're telling me that the government could facially recognize me wearing these glasses?" Meta kind of had some executives come out and be like, "No, no, no, it's meant to be a closed system on Instagram,

• 29:34Speaker 07

  and, you know, it's based on your contacts. You get to define who these people are." That wasn't widely disseminated. And then Wired came out with their own investigation, and they found that Meta had silently shipped the code for this NameTag feature to millions of devices out there and, you know, secretly walked it back after all of that. And once, the backlash was huge because, you know, no one wants to feel like they're walking down the street and an ordinary pair of Meta glasses is, like, identifying them. A couple of years ago, there were these college students who modified a pair of Meta glasses so that they could instantly dox people based on existing facial recognition database that are out there. And, you know, it's creepy. It's just creepy to have the idea, especially if you're a woman, that you're walking down the street

• 30:19Speaker 07

  and a pickup artist could be looking at you and finding out your name and your address, pretending that they know you. And it can be quite scary, especially since...

• 30:27Kara Swisher?

  They also disable the lights that are supposed to meant they can disable, that it's taped.

• 30:32Speaker 07

  Yeah, so for the longest time, Meta's privacy policy was, "Don't be a jerk." Also, we have this singular LED light that will signal to everyone that you're recording. Well, this LED light can not only be tampered with in multiple ways, both by software and physically by drilling into the light, it's very easily washed out by bright sunlight. So you're outside, you're walking, it's daylight. I have pictures on theverge.com where I have the light on, and you really can't notice that it's there. I've had many people in testing. I'll be like, "Can you see this privacy light?" And they're like, "Oh, you know, it's really easily washed out. We're in bright sunlight." Or, "We're indoors even. No one's really noticing it."

• 31:11Kara Swisher?

  A true story. I was at a Vanity Fair Oscar party, and Sergey Brin walked in with Google Glass. And nobody would talk to him. This was many years ago, maybe a decade ago, when they were putting out Google Glass. And he came up to me, he goes, no one's talking to me. I wonder why? I go, you fucking creeper. Like, what do you think? These are celebrities. They don't want to be, you want to tape people? Well, I'm not doing it. I'm like, yeah, but how do they know? Like, it was really, it's sort of the mentality from the beginning that this is a good thing to be able to identify people.

• 31:40Speaker 07

  Yeah, that, and it's just like, there is a disconnect between what people know the limitations of the devices are versus what they can actually do. Online, you see a lot of people go, oh, I don't want to be recorded 24/7.

• 31:51Kara Swisher?

  Right.

• 31:51Speaker 07

  Well, the reality is that these glasses only last about 30 minutes of continuous recording. And that's if you've got them charged all the way up. But in the future, and there has been reporting on this, Meadow wants these devices to be super sensing or recording 24/7, in which case there's a lot of sensitive situations that opens people up to.

• 32:13Kara Swisher?

  Yeah. 404 Media reported earlier this summer how police were using Flock feature called Freeform to track people, not just cars, which they had claimed that was what they were doing. Again, Flock has said its products do not have facial recognition. But Jason, how does Freeform work and what are the characteristics people are searching for? I mean, you were walking your dog.

• 32:31Speaker 06

  Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, this Freeform search does use the automated license plate reader system. So, again, Flock says this just takes static images, but it's not just a static image of a license plate. It's an image of a car. And for a while, they did roll out video as well. What Freeform searches is essentially Google for cops. Victoria brought up earlier, this woman who was arrested in Florida, who served 13 days in prison. What happened there was the cops searched for a black SUV. And so rather than actually having the license plate in question, they typed in black SUV. And her car was flagged by this system. She was near the site of a hit and run accident that killed three people. The cops showed up at her house and arrested her on these manslaughter charges.

• 33:17Speaker 06

  Her car was not in any accident whatsoever. She was not involved. She just happened to be nearby. This can be applied to, like, searches for people. So you could search protest sign, like someone holding a sign. You can search for different types of bumper stickers. You can search for a dog, for example. And so if there's a report of a dog bite or something like that, a cop could search any dog that passed by one of these Flock cameras. Another thing that Flock likes to bring up is that these cameras are not always recording. They are motion activated. And so they're only recording when something happens, which is essentially the same thing when anyone or any car drives by.

• 33:55Speaker 06

  And so that's one of the things with this company is that the technology started off being maybe not so advanced, but they've been adding features left and right. They are experimenting all the time. And once a city is sort of locked into a contract, it's like they're getting all of these upgrades and cops are experimenting with them.

• 34:16Kara Swisher?

  Of course they will.

• 34:16Speaker 06

  Yeah, it's become like the first thing that cops do is they go to Flock anytime there's a report of a crime. And they're like, I'm going to type it into the system and see what comes out.

• 34:24Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, it makes their life easier in that regard, less policing and more surveillance. Every episode, we get a question from an outside expert. Here is yours.

• 34:32Speaker 04

  Hi, everyone. I am Nicole Perleroth, the cybersecurity journalist and author of This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends, about the cyber weapons arms race. I have covered everything from the Snowden files to the recent Chinese cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure. And more recently, I've been tracking North Korean efforts to secure remote IT work at US companies on my podcast, To Catch a Thief. I am also actually a Flock customer. Our street set up Flock safety cameras after we were broken into. But perhaps more than anyone in the neighborhood, I'm also acutely aware that we are creating an ambient surveillance network

• 35:11Speaker 04

  where the people getting caught in these dragnet's never opted in and really never have a way to meaningfully opt out. So the big question I would ask of each of you is what information should companies simply never be allowed to collect in the first place? And what is the single most important rule you would put in place before this infrastructure becomes impossible to unwind? Thank you so much.

• 35:39Kara Swisher?

  Sophia, you go first, then Victoria, then Jason.

• 35:42Speaker 00

  You know, this is an interesting question because I also can personally relate to this, having had vandalism at my home. And how would we respond? And, you know, our choice was to have a closed system where we could know what was happening around us, but that did not feed to law enforcement and did not trigger the cops coming and let's say arresting my teenage son falsely. So I think when one implements a surveillance tech for their own personal safety, that does not mean that they're entitled to surveil the entire neighborhood or everyone around them and ensnare and entrap everyone into that. You know, I think, I thought that was the more ethical, personal choice for our family.

• 36:26Speaker 00

  And I think these are the kinds of things that also protect my neighbors ultimately. It's not so much the, what is the message from the companies? I think it's what is the message that we carry and what are the values we carry in our neighborhoods, in our communities, you know, with our neighbors? We have an incredible community, listserv, and we do a lot of things to try to just look out for each other as people. And I think outsourcing that to the tech isn't particularly beneficial, not to the degree that it creates, you know, other opportunities. As Victoria was talking about, like, having a conversation about what we see and how we can help each other.

• 37:03Kara Swisher?

  Right. And what would be the single most important rule you would put in place?

• 37:06Speaker 00

  I think these systems should be illegal until we have done the proper vetting, have the proper public discourse, and we have more democratic participation in whether they exist in our lives at all.

• 37:19Kara Swisher?

  At all. Victoria?

• 37:21Speaker 07

  So a lot of the surveillance tech I deal with is kind of on a personal level. It's wearables. It's.

• 37:26Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, I'm going to get to that next.

• 37:27Speaker 07

  One thing that I've been grappling with recently is the idea of my personal privacy and data is my personal privacy, kind of similar to what Sophia was saying. I don't think that anyone should ever be put in the position to be the steward of someone else's privacy, given these devices. And so that's the one thing that you, consent is like the number one thing in my mind at this point in time. And the idea that I am now burdened with your privacy if we just happen to be sharing a physical space is, is a heavy burden. And it's really kind of turned me off the supposed convenience or benefits of these devices. The, the number one rule, I think, is that we cannot leave it to private companies to make these decisions.

• 38:11Speaker 07

  We do need regulators and we do need places to weigh in and chime in because what happens when you have a pair of glasses that is your primary seeing device? And you go into a court and the court is like, well, we've banned it. And you're left without a seeing device that is vital to you navigating the world. Are you then obligated as an individual to carry two backup seeing devices on you at all times? When glasses cost a bajillion dollars in the, in the US, especially if you're visually impaired? So it's like, we need to be having, like Sophia said, a very public discourse and one with legislators. And we cannot leave it to these private companies to decide.

• 38:50Kara Swisher?

  No, and I think it's laudable that, yeah, they were trying to sell it as a device, like the Meta Glasses for veterans who can't see or blind people who can't see and things like that.

• 38:59Speaker 07

  It's life changing for them, but those people too deserve privacy. Those people too deserve a higher standard. So I, I have a little bit of an issue with people using this as, using accessibility as a shield.

• 39:12Kara Swisher?

  Jason?

• 39:13Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, I think facial recognition should be a nonstarter, but I think more broadly than that, like automated enforcement using these technologies where, right now, the, the big difference is that we used to have human beings watching surveillance footage, getting it after the fact, that sort of thing. Now you have an AI watching this footage at all times and you have a network that is a lot larger than it's ever been. And I think that we really risk criminalizing a lot of, like frivolous behaviors. Like, I, I think that we are marching towards a place where it is very difficult to exist in public without running afoul of some local ordinance or, you know, small crime. And I think that.

• 39:54Kara Swisher?

  That's Larry Ellison's goal.

• 39:55Speaker 06

  It is. I know exactly what you're referring to. And that, I mean, that's the goal that some of these people imagine.

• 40:01Kara Swisher?

  This is for people who don't know, Larry Ellison said, it's good to have them because then people behave.

• 40:05Speaker 06

  Exactly. And I think.

• 40:06Kara Swisher?

  Said the person who never behaves.

• 40:07Speaker 06

  I think we are starting to see surveillance systems affecting behavior, especially with Meta Glasses and things like that. Like, a guy on my softball team wore them the other day. I didn't know he was wearing them. He hit a homerun and he turned them on. And I was like, oh my God, I'm being recorded. I didn't even know. And you sort of don't know how to react in that moment.

• 40:23Kara Swisher?

  It's bad enough with cell phones, but you can see them coming in a lot of ways.

• 40:26Speaker 06

  And then I think that there should be a warrant requirement. And I think that, you know, a lot of cops and the companies say that this will make it the technology not viable. But, you know, there's been studies done that the average warrant takes something like three minutes to process. Like, this can be a very streamlined process, but I do think that adding that little bit of friction will prevent a lot of abuse. It appears to be a nonstarter for Flock and companies like it. Something that they don't want to talk about. And it's something that they fought very, you know, heavily against. They say, please regulate us. But then you say, okay, warrant requirement, and they shut down.

• 41:03Kara Swisher?

  We'll be back in a minute.

• 41:13Kara Swisher?

  Whenever fall comes back around, it always feels like a fresh start. This year, I've been layering in some styles from the new Lululemon fall drop because the weather is shifting and I find I have to be ready for the entire day.

• 41:23Speaker 05

  And not just one part of it. Lululemon's fall line has some really versatile transitional pieces. So I can just wake up, throw on a matching set, add a jacket or a fleece and head out, knowing that I'll feel comfortable enough to go wherever the day takes me. Check out the new fall arrivals in store and online now at lululemon.com.

• 41:42Speaker 05

  Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in and that's too late. SimpliSafe is changing that. Stop. This is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way. We don't just alert, we help stop crime before it starts. Plans starting around a dollar a day. Right now, get 60% off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com/spotify. SimpliSafe, ahead of crime in real time. Outdoor deterrence plans start at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com/licenses for alarm license information.

• 42:12Speaker 03

  Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. The message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.

• 42:34Speaker 04

  Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate for three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

• 42:43Kara Swisher?

  Let's shift to the consumer angle. Victoria just referenced about wearable tech. By some estimates, nearly half of Americans own a wearable device. But a recent report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that most wearables lack basic transparency reports and key privacy features. Victoria, you argue that after smartphone, quote, "tech companies have decided they should live on and eventually in our bodies." So is more wearable and implantable tech that captures your biometric data an inevitability? And how is personal data that's collected on these devices used? Just for myself, I don't wear the Oura ring anymore. I've shifted to a regular watch, not a digital watch. The phone is probably the one thing that is with me all the time. So talk about this briefly.

• 43:24Speaker 07

  So basically, you know, these devices are constantly like sampling your biometrics. Like a smartwatch, for example, is constantly measuring your heart rate. It's measuring your movements and it all gets fed into algorithms that are proprietary and are different depending on which company you're using. And they'll use that and feed it into an AI increasingly now that gives you personalized insights. And the idea is that eventually you'll get personalized medicine. And this is kind of an interesting concept, sort of. But it requires so much data and these companies are getting increasingly invasive. So they're increasingly tying up with CGMs, which are continuous glucose monitors, because metabolism is a thing that they want to get into.

• 44:09Speaker 07

  They want to track your hormones and so they're asking you to pee into a cup and use your pee data in some way. They want to measure your sweat through your feet for a scale. And all of these things are supposed to create a picture of you. So you have better health data, that's the benefit that they give to you. But it's also just like, well, they want all that information so they can serve you targeted ads. They want all that information so that they can serve their advertisers in some ways. And it's similar to how the flock camera is saying like crime is something that will solve and will give you all this convenience. It's going to save your life. So it's a pretty compelling thing, but you know, as we're seeing, they're not just health trackers anymore.

• 44:51Speaker 07

  They're going to be ambient listening devices that are just on your body all the time.

• 44:56Kara Swisher?

  This new Apple announcement, ambient.

• 44:58Speaker 07

  Yes, the audio intelligence announcement, which is just, you know, it's making people feel a certain way because it's one thing to save your life. If you're in a car crash or if you fall down, it's another when it's just like, oh, is your Apple Watch listening to me at all times?

• 45:16Kara Swisher?

  Right, exactly.

• 45:17Speaker 07

  What is the transcript that's being generated? And you know, Apple has released a white paper, some support documents that said there's no audio that's being saved, there's no playback. There's attribution stripped from all of these high level summaries, there's no transcript. And it seems like they're trying to preemptively address some of the privacy concerns there. But it's also just like, it changes the behavior of people now.

• 45:44Kara Swisher?

  And these are the people who just changed Lake Ontario to Lake America, just pointing that out. Ridiculous people they are. Apple, by the way, just unveiled its new AI watch that always listening feature that takes notes of a wearer's conversations through the day. Turn it off, everybody. Just turn it off. There's no need for you to know that.

• 46:01Speaker 07

  It's at least opt in, so it's not on by default. So if you don't ever want it, you don't have to.

• 46:06Kara Swisher?

  If it was a Facebook one, it would be on by default. So go Apple. Good for you, Apple. The New York Times recently reported that Nannett and other startups offering smart baby monitor systems tanning benefits like optimized nap predictions. According to Times reporting, the wearables market is approaching $100 billion. There's a huge potential in the baby tech sector. Sophia, you worked in tech and advertising before entering academia. Talk about the rise of baby tech and what's the risk benefit analysis that parents should consider for hooking up a newborn with a smart monitor? I have four kids. I have used listening monitors on them. But increasingly, as I had more children, less and less monitoring happened over time. And certainly, there's been a lot of reports of people hacking into it, et cetera, et cetera. These sort of nightmare stories.

• 46:51Kara Swisher?

  Talk a little bit about newborn baby tech.

• 46:54Speaker 00

  Yeah, I mean, so much of this wearable tech is snake oil. And I think that's one of the things that people really don't understand. I mean, even in a hospital, you know, we remember during COVID that the oximeter can actually accurately read the levels of oxygen among African Americans or more melanated people. So the science is faulty on a lot of the premises as Victoria is getting at. So imagine putting the faulty science on a newborn baby. I'm going to tell you that there's not a lot of research on newborn babies, just as there is not a lot. If you think about clinical trials and the kind of scientific basis of how research is done in medicine, it's mostly white men.

• 47:36Speaker 00

  So the entire like premise here that we somehow are going to know more and be more effective in a medical intervention context is patently false. And we know this. To me, that, you know, when you think about babies and talk about people who can't consent to being entrapped into these systems. And of course, many, many parents over the last decade, as they've been quitting Facebook, have also been taking their children off the internet for very important reasons, because your children shouldn't be on the internet. Their faces shouldn't be on the internet, not just for the way in which their images are used

• 48:17Speaker 00

  for child sexual exploitation materials and child pornography. But I think, you know, babies like crime, like the things we're talking about, health, are such an emotional trigger for families. People want to protect their babies. They want to believe that they're giving their children the very best. And that, what a pernicious kind of craven marketing ploy to use. I mean, that is really, they are the objects of manipulation for parents and people who are caretakers of children.

• 48:49Kara Swisher?

  Also, you cannot optimize naps. Sorry.

• 48:51Speaker 00

  You really can't.

• 48:52Kara Swisher?

  You can't. And also, babies aren't doing many crimes, I've noticed. Babies aren't crimes.

• 48:57Speaker 00

  Leave the babies out of it.

• 48:58Kara Swisher?

  No crime in babies. And if they are, we'll take care of that one baby. Very clever baby. The only time I've used technology monitoring, and it's on the opposite end for elderly people. My mother was falling a lot and I allowed a fall camera in the thing because it was hard, you know, because she fell so much. And so in that case, I found it useful. I made certain they had an on off switch for it. Wearable technology can help empower people, it can. And devices like Apple Watch can help doctors and patients detect conditions like atrial fibrillation. I used one when I had a stroke, it was very helpful. But that utility depends on collecting, again, an increasing amount of detailed data. Victoria and then Jason, how should people weigh those benefits against the privacy risks?

• 49:41Kara Swisher?

  And where should the line be drawn that these devices collect, retain and share? And is any company doing it right? First, Victoria, then Jason.

• 49:49Speaker 07

  That's a lot of stuff, but you know, I will say that one thing that we do at The Verge in our reviews is we have an agreed to continue section at the end of each review. And we talk about the terms and conditions you're agreeing to. And I always say that if you're very sensitive to your private health data, you do not want a wearable device. I say this as the wearable lady, because it's not just, you know, your device, you buy it, that's one set of terms and conditions and privacy policies. You have to connect it to your phone, that's a separate set of privacy terms and conditions. And then, you know, all of these things, they're saying, oh, connect to Strava, connect to these other third party things. Those have their own separate terms and conditions.

• 50:30Speaker 07

  So when you're connecting through these APIs, you are agreeing to that third party's possibly less rigorous privacy terms and standards. So there's no way to really stop and contain the privacy of your health data. HIPAA exists, but it's woefully inadequate and has been outdated for wearable technology since its inception. So, you know, you can't really rely on those things. And what I generally tell people is that these devices are constantly bombarding you with more metrics, more things to become anxious about. And what you really have to do is come in with a very strong goal if you have a health issue. That, again, if you have had a stroke, if you have had a heart condition, I-

• 51:13Speaker 07

  Continually test CGMs because I have a messed up metabolism and I'm trying not to have full-blown diabetes, even though it's in my family history. So there's like a certain terms of engagement that I have set for myself. And, you know, I've talked with my own editors about what level of invasive technology I am willing to test for myself and what I will not test because an increasing number of these companies want my blood and I have to sit with that about like all the blood draws that they want to take from me. And by that extension, consumers. These are very serious things that these companies want to learn from you. So it's like, do you have a condition that needs to be monitored? Are you chronically ill for those people? Wearables can be very empowering. It can help them regulate their day and their energy.

• 51:58Speaker 07

  There are specific wearables that are out there to help them with that. If you are someone who is hard of hearing or low vision, there are certain trade-offs there that will make your life more autonomous, more independent, and that's great for you. But if you are an average person, sometimes the healthiest thing you can do is not engage with these devices. It's to listen to your own body. And, you know, I always say, wearables are only meant to monitor long-term trends. You can like ignore it most of the time and still be fine.

• 52:26Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 52:27Speaker 07

  You know when you've had a good night's worth of sleep. You generally do if you're healthy.

• 52:31Kara Swisher?

  In the series I did for CNN, I was talking to Zeke Emanuel, and we were talking about the Oura Ring, and he goes, you know when you don't sleep well. You don't need it to tell you that you didn't sleep well, which is interesting. So Jason, go ahead.

• 52:42Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, I was just gonna say, like, there's a reason why people use these things, which is they're very convenient. And I think that they almost kind of like insidiously enter your life where you get them for one reason and then, you know, new features are added, that sort of thing. I think often about TSA Pre and Clear and all these things that we do at the airport to save a few minutes, like, or to not have to take our wallet out, like, that sort of thing. And I think every person needs to sort of make their calculation, like, what they're comfortable with and what they're not comfortable with. I think that one of the things that I try to do in my work is focus on how we can push back for better regulation of these technologies. And I think Victoria raised a super important point, that every surveillance device, or

• 53:26Speaker 06

  whether it's a wearable, whether it's, you know, you're buying a Ring camera, these sorts of things, they connect to other systems. And I think that once you don't have any idea where your data is flowing, that's when I start to personally get very uncomfortable with it. And you asked about companies that you trust. I mean, I think that they don't have a perfect track record, but I think Apple at least nods to privacy a lot, and they do a lot of things like on-device, things like this, like, you can control where the data is going often.

• 53:53Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, unless they get your device, it's in there.

• 53:55Speaker 06

  Exactly. And that's the other thing is like, I mean, the only way to be absolutely safe is to like opt out of society entirely. And I think that that is not feasible for most people. I think also with something like a Ring camera, it's like, maybe your family is okay with you having a Ring camera, but is the people who deliver packages to your house, is the gardener, is, you know, you're sort of opting other people into these ecosystems. And I think people need to consider that.

• 54:21Kara Swisher?

  Well, let's end by looking at the shift around public attitudes. I have taken all these things off my house, which is interesting because I don't have an Oura Ring anymore. I'm moving to analog watches again. I still, of course, have the phone. Apps and products routinely encourage users to share more personal information, exchange for better experience or improved product. There's a sense that you're contributing to making something better by sharing your data. They ask you that all the time. Would you like to share to help us improve our systems? Sophia, what other arguments do companies use to persuade us to surrender our data? And how valid are those arguments? Everyone has gotten that pop-up, for example.

• 54:54Speaker 00

  Yeah, I mean, I think that the more that these technologies are embedded into our public institutions, into our jobs, you know, into kind of authority conferring, legitimizing spaces, the more people feel they cannot resist, or they feel that someone has vetted these things for them, or their livelihood is dependent upon them. So I think that's one of the challenges, is that the public is, for example, deeply suspicious of generative AI and large language models. And yet, when they go to work, especially the more they're working in kind of like white-collar jobs, they're being forced to use these kinds of things.

• 55:37Speaker 00

  And so I think the companies have been smart to try to really triple down on enterprise level engagement. And of course, we have things like, which we haven't even talked about, surge pricing and predictive pricing and things that happen. You know, now you're in the grocery store and you're paying more, I'm paying more than Victoria is paying, you know, for the same bag of carrots. Like, all of these kinds of things, I think, are, thankfully, The Verge and 404 Media have been powerfully covering and helping us understand, investigative journalists understand what the stakes are. But the companies are really gamifying. You know, they're either going through our jobs, or they're kind of gamifying, making these things seem fun and interesting, and like, you don't want to be left behind.

• 56:20Speaker 00

  I mean, we see these ads all over LA for friend.com, you know, the friend necklace that, oh, okay, we could just do a show on friend. I mean, from hell. So, you know, the wearable necklace that tracks every single thing you do and all your conversations, and somehow that's cute, and comments on your life. So I think, you know, we just have to get smarter and smarter about this. Our instincts in the public, that these things are not what we want, are the right instincts. And I would just say that people have ways to resist. One of the most powerful things that people can do, if you have a pension, or you have a 401K, or you have any way to direct your money out of surveillance tech, that is something

• 57:04Speaker 00

  you can and should do. We're doing that as professors right now in the UC. We have a massive campaign going to take our pension money out of surveillance tech. There should be pressure on CalPERS and CalSTRS and all of the different pension funds, because that's actually where they, these companies get the money to make the terrible things that are either gonna put us out of work or make our lives more difficult. So we need to also, you know, feel more agency and power in speaking back to and cutting off the flow of capital into these dumb ideas.

• 57:37Kara Swisher?

  I would also stress that they're saying, if you give her your data, it'll be better. It's their business. They can figure out a different way than stealing from you. Last question for all of you. The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently released a two-part guide to online safety and doxing, which is ways to reduce your overall footprint, along with steps to take if you're in the midst of being doxed. Ultimately, a lot of people don't feel in control of their personal data, and a lot of it you can't opt out of unless you want to just live out in the woods and grow your own vegetables, which maybe you might want to do soon about the vegetable part. But what will it take to convince people that their actions matter when it comes to protecting their privacy? Because in fact, they do. And I've said that this popular backlash against surveillance tech and data centers

• 58:18Kara Swisher?

  is a proxy for anger toward tech oligarchs, billionaires, AI, a number of things. Do you think we're reaching a moment when backlash can lead to actual systemic change or political movement and changing our relationship with tech and consumers? I doubt it. I sort of go more with different European regulators, one of whom told me, we're trading convenience for control of our lives. So I'd love each of you to sort of reflect in a big picture. Do you think there is a movement? Because I feel it with my older sons. They are veering away from this stuff in a way that is social media, tracking and things like that, much more so than people that are older than. But do you feel like it is one of those moments where we want to renegotiate our relationship with tech?

• 59:02Kara Swisher?

  Jason, Victoria, and then Sophia, you can finish and have the last word.

• 59:07Speaker 06

  I absolutely do think that there is a movement there, like you identified. I started becoming a tech journalist right before the Edward Snowden revelations of 2013, and that was a big moment. I mean, there were not huge changes in privacy then, but it was very top of mind. But I've been covering surveillance and privacy ever since then, and I've always looked at it as this very niche thing that, you know, a lot of people care about very deeply, but that the masses either don't understand or don't get out of bed to talk about. And with this Flock and AI data center backlash, I mean, I log on to Instagram and the videos I'm seeing there are people talking about it. One, a lot of them are very informed, like, getting into the nitty-gritty. And two, a lot of them don't have 10,000 views, they have 10 million views.

• 59:50Speaker 06

  And I mean, that's a difficult way to assess popularity, but I do think you are seeing people show up at city council meetings, you're seeing city councils cancel these contracts, and you're also seeing attempts by the people who are opposing Flock to make this a more universal discussion about surveillance technologies in general. And so, you know, there are powerful interests sort of on the other side, like, there's a lot of money on the line for these companies, like, AI companies especially, to have us use this technology and to have, you know, data center proliferate and all that sort of thing. But I do think that there is a very concerted backlash right now. And I do think that politicians are starting to listen, whether that leads to meaningful

• 1:00:33Speaker 06

  change, or whether it leads to, you know, like, packaging it up around the edges and getting shoved down our throats anyways. I think that kind of remains to be seen. But I'm feeling a bit more optimistic than I have in quite some time, just because of the amount of energy that we're seeing right now.

• 1:00:50Kara Swisher?

  Victoria?

• 1:00:51Speaker 07

  Yeah, I just want to bring up the example of Google Glass, the original version, and the current backlash that we're seeing with Meta Glasses. The public absolutely has a say in whether these things proliferate, because what happened with the Google Glass? People were ripping them off each other's faces. And then you don't want to get into a situation where you're in danger. You know, I see this incredibly violent language that my readers and people online say with these pervert glasses, where it's like, oh, gonna rip them off each other's faces. And I'm like, don't do that. That could be not so great for you. But at the same time, you know, my coworker Mia Sato wrote a story about how people are harassing retail workers with these glasses. And one thing that I found super encouraging was, the retail worker was so smart, and he said, Meta, stop recording.

• 1:01:36Speaker 07

  So people can do things to make these devices unattractive, and that will force companies to either adopt a less evil way of implementing that. We've seen that with Apple with these new audio intelligence features, where they're saying, so it's not gonna do this, it's not gonna do that. We're trying to make it attractive in a more private way because there is this public backlash. So yes, like, I do have hope.

• 1:02:00Kara Swisher?

  They're certainly not gonna do it on their own, trust me.

• 1:02:03Speaker 07

  They're not going to do it on their own. So people do have to say very loudly, we don't like this, do better. So I do have hope there, because we killed smart glasses once. This is very fragile. I'm still a skeptic. I'm not, I'm not, it's not inevitable that smart glasses have to be a thing, so.

• 1:02:20Kara Swisher?

  Do you know where the video will go in your AirPods? That's where it's going, much more so. I'm just telling you, FYI. And that's where it's headed. Sophia, you get the last word.

• 1:02:30Speaker 00

  Well, I gotta say, I've been in this conversation for a long time, too. And I definitely think that the way everyday people are talking about these issues is so different than it was in 2010 and 2012. So I'm extremely hopeful. In fact, what I see is unions are starting to come to the table and they're bargaining over the use of AI and the job. That is, go, go harder, do more on that. We are seeing all over Europe, in particular, a complete divestment from US big tech. I mean, nation states are talking about, we need to get our governments and our citizens off of Microsoft. So these are

• 1:03:12Speaker 00

  very big global shifts. And in fact, there's a whole new renaissance for Linux, if you can believe it, or people having the server at home, keeping things local, figuring out how to make mesh networks. We see new kind of Bluetooth networking, just very interesting kinds of what we might think of as fringe now, but moving toward more and more toward the mainstream, because people do love tech, but they want to do it in ways that are not so consequential. And of course, the more that people learn about Palantir and what it means to have these kinds of companies as the infrastructural backbone of where all this data converges to create digital profiles that determine how you can move.

• 1:03:56Speaker 00

  I mean, social credit, people worry about what China's doing, we should be worried about what the United States is doing. So I think that these are much more mainstream conversations than they were a decade ago. And I'm grateful that we're able to have these conversations. This conversation will reach a lot of people. And there are practical ways, again, that people can move their money out of surveillance tech. They can bargain over those things on their job. They can confront the school boards and the schools where their children go and get this predictive AI out of the lives that are kind of where these technologies will over determine what is possible for us and for our futures.

• 1:04:35Kara Swisher?

  Yep. I do believe there is, for the first time, I agree with all of you, that there is suddenly a lot of anger. It's a lot of reasons, but it's converging. And it would be really nice if our regulators would listen to people, which they don't do most of the time, instead of get bought and paid for by these companies. Anyway, I really appreciate it. It's really important to understand surveillance and to have a good attitude towards it. In some cases, it can be helpful. In most cases, it is helpful only to these tech companies. And I really appreciate your continued work, all of you.

• 1:05:05Speaker 06

  Thanks for having me.

• 1:05:07Kara Swisher?

  Thanks for having us.

• 1:05:13Kara Swisher?

  Today's show was produced by Nishat Kurwa, Michelle Alloy, Catherine Millsop, Megan Burney, and Madeline LaPlante-Duby. Special thanks to Lissa Sowup, Jim Mackel, Manolo Moreno, and Annika Robbins. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, we won't have to follow you. If not, your creeper glasses won't save you from Silicon Valley's Surveillance Panopticon. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.

• 1:05:57Speaker 02

  When fall comes back around, there's a sense of a reset. And new pieces from Lululemon's fall drop are an inspiration to push your goals and elevate your routines. As your calendar fills, easy-to-layer styles meet the demands of your day. And as you challenge yourself to try even more, versatile sets transition with you. The Lululemon fall lineup brings new levels of comfort and confidence, whether you're starting something fresh or starting something over. Check out the latest arrivals in store and on lululemon.com now.

• 1:06:27Speaker 03

  Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com/switch.

• 1:06:46Speaker 04

  Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

• 1:06:57Speaker 05

  Traditional home security only alerts you after a break-in, and that's too late. SimpliSafe is changing that. Stop. This is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way. We don't just alert, we help stop crime before it starts. Plans starting around $1 a day. Right now, get 60% off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com/spotify. SimpliSafe, ahead of crime in real time. Outdoor deterrence plans start at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com/licenses for alarm license information.