Scout Sinclair Brody: We’ve got a full pro­gram, so I’m going to ask y’all to keep it brief, but you all are involved in one way or anoth­er in the cre­ation of tech­nol­o­gy. So tell us a lit­tle bit about who you are and what you do in this space. Let’s start with Tyler.

Tyler Reinhard: Hi, every­one. My name’s Tyler Reinhard. I’m a design­er and a pub­lish­er. I began that work in 2000. I made my first web site when I was in high school to sell under­ground rad­i­cal zines online via PO Box. And ever since then I’ve been work­ing on projects like that, with vary­ing esca­la­tions. Right now I’m work­ing on Signal, the pri­va­cy app for iOS.

Sinclair Brody: Get it.

Reinhard: Yeah, get it. It’s pret­ty cool.

Harlo Holmes: And/or RedPhone.

Reinhard: Yeah, and/or Redphone and TextSecure. Those three are a suite of tools [since com­bined as just Signal] that me and some oth­er peo­ple work on with a project called Open Whisper Systems. I’m also the pub­lish­er of Mask Magazine, which is a low-brow approach to dis­cussing polit­i­cal issues for the Internet gen­er­a­tion, I guess. So that’s me.

Sinclair Brody: Awesome. Harlo.

Holmes: Hey. I’m Harlo Holmes. I’m a dig­i­tal secu­ri­ty train­er for the Freedom of the Press Foundation based out of San Francisco but tech­ni­cal­ly I’m the New York office, just me. I have a pro­fes­sion­al back­ground in soft­ware devel­op­ment, pri­mar­i­ly with The Guardian Project, which is a col­lec­tive that builds a bunch of privacy-forward mobile apps. And through The Guardian Project, I got to learn very very inti­mate­ly about cryp­to sys­tems. I’m not a cryp­tog­ra­ph­er, I’m not a math­e­mati­cian, but I’m real­ly real­ly good at APIs and real­ly real­ly good at using libraries, so I’ve come to a point where hav­ing got­ten to inti­mate­ly learn how these code­bas­es work am able to explain to peo­ple, jour­nal­ists, whistle­blow­ers, librar­i­ans, high school stu­dents, you name it, how these pieces of code come to bear on the apps that they use. I’ve always been real­ly real­ly inter­est­ed, even since I was a kid, in secrets and how they’re pro­tect­ed and how they’re stored and kept, even though mine are real­ly real­ly boring.

Sinclair Brody: Alright, Ame.

Ame Elliot: I’m Ame Elliot. I’m a user expe­ri­ence design­er. I love mobile apps that make you hap­py and that feel good under your thumb.

Sinclair Brody: Wonderful. The pre­vi­ous pan­el talked a bit about pri­va­cy as some­thing that we’re strug­gling for. There are, how­ev­er, a num­ber of tech­nolo­gies, we’ve men­tioned a cou­ple already, that real­ly have pri­va­cy as a core val­ue. So when we talk about privacy-preserving tech­nol­o­gy (Harlo, in your mind) what do we real­ly mean? What does it mean for a tech­nol­o­gy to be privacy-preserving.

Holmes: First off I’d like to say that it’s actu­al­ly not about cer­tain apps or cer­tain soft­ware or what­ev­er, expe­ri­ences. It’s actu­al­ly about the fun­da­men­tal the­o­ry of end-to-end encryp­tion. There’s dif­fer­ent types of encryp­tion, stuff that we’re real­ly real­ly used to see­ing like for instance TLS or SSL, HTTPS that you see in the brows­er, and that’s an exam­ple of trans­port secu­ri­ty. For instance in a Facebook con­ver­sa­tion, I can def­i­nite­ly be sure that my mes­sage to some­one else is encrypt­ed when it gets to Facebook, but once it gets to Facebook, Facebook has all abil­i­ty to read it as they pass it on to its intend­ed destination.

So end-to-end encryp­tion is impor­tant because it ensures that lit­er­al­ly only the two ter­mi­nus­es of a con­ver­sa­tion can per­form that encryp­tion and decryp­tion func­tion, and every­thing else in the mid­dle is gob­bledy­gook. All apps, all pieces of soft­ware that ful­fill this basic need, I con­sid­er privacy-forward, and those are the things that I want to pro­mote no mat­ter what shell they come in. No mat­ter what they look like, as long as they’re fun to use and ful­fill that principle.

Sinclair Brody: Tyler, would you agree? Would you define privacy-preserving tech­nolo­gies sim­i­lar­ly, and if so or if not, how would you con­trast it with the expe­ri­ences that we have in most pop­u­lar products.

Reinhard: I think that I do agree with that. I think that pri­va­cy is some­thing that we can think of in terms of a civ­il right, as indi­vid­u­als. Something that we are able to con­sent to who can read our pri­vate ideas or pri­vate thoughts and who can’t. That’s a civ­il rights issue. But I think there’s also a way to think about it in terms of a social issue that’s larg­er than sim­ply the indi­vid­ual. One exam­ple would be that over the course of the datafi­ca­tion of maps, we’ve all been using these maps to get around. One of the pri­ma­ry users of of those is peo­ple who pro­fes­sion­al­ly use those maps. And now we’re in a sit­u­a­tion where com­pa­nies are able to lever­age that data to pro­duce cars that can move themselves.

When you think about how that func­tions in terms of peo­ple whose liveli­hoods, like for exam­ple all Teamsters, using a ser­vice and gen­er­at­ing val­ue for a com­pa­ny and then being in a sit­u­a­tion where per­haps their liveli­hood could be com­plete­ly oblit­er­at­ed, their con­sent to hav­ing their data used against their eco­nom­ic inter­ests is some­thing that is a social issue as well. So I think privacy-preserving tech­nol­o­gy should be thought of in terms of civ­il rights, but I think it’s impor­tant to think of it also in terms of how we orga­nize and defend our liveli­hoods in the sys­tem and sys­tems that we live in. So I guess that’s my answer.

Sinclair Brody: A recent Pew study found that 93% of par­tic­i­pants in the study rat­ed the abil­i­ty to com­mu­ni­cate con­fi­den­tial­ly with some­one as being very or some­what impor­tant, yet it seems like most peo­ple I know have nev­er heard of end-to-end encryp­tion, much less pri­or­i­tize using it. Why do you think that is, Ame?

Elliot: I think peo­ple care about pri­va­cy, and peo­ple care about secu­ri­ty, but I think they also care about com­mu­ni­cat­ing with the peo­ple they want to com­mu­ni­cate with. What we’ve seen is that peo­ple build up and accrete these biogra­phies over time, where they speak, where they com­mu­ni­cate with dif­fer­ent groups of peo­ple on a dif­fer­ent plat­form. So if your grand­par­ents are alive, you may be FaceTiming or Skyping with them. You may use Facebook to com­mu­ni­cate with col­lege friends, and WhatsApp to com­mu­ni­cate with new pro­fes­sion­al peo­ple that you’re meet­ing on a job. You may have a robust inner life on Tinder. And it can be kind of awk­ward when you move peo­ple between those platforms.

So I think there’s an inher­ent dichoto­my between the need and the delight and the plea­sure of feel­ing pri­vate, and the awk­ward­ness of expect­ing some­one who’s down­load­ing Signal for the first time to say, Hey, my entire com­mu­ni­ty, come with me onto this new plat­form.” That puts a bit of pres­sure on the peo­ple, and I think we need to find ways to get more peo­ple there.

Sinclair Brody: Tyler, what chal­lenges do you think design­ers face, specif­i­cal­ly, in try­ing to work in this privacy-forward space, and what are the oppor­tu­ni­ties for them to make an impact.

Reinhard: I think the prin­ci­pal dilem­ma for design­ers is that we haven’t fig­ured out a way to get away from a sort of data analysis-driven econ­o­my. So if you want to make mon­ey as a design­er, you’re going to work for the com­pa­nies that can pay you to do that well. And you’re going to have to take on pri­va­cy work as a pas­sion. So that pas­sion, I think, is hard to place exact­ly in terms of what pre­cise­ly are the prob­lems that need solv­ing in pri­va­cy from a design per­spec­tive, and how do we solve those prob­lems in a way that’s com­pet­i­tive with an envi­ron­ment that is approach­ing com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent prob­lems and pre­sent­ing aes­thet­ic standards. 

For exam­ple, if you’re work­ing on a mes­sen­ger app, a lot of oth­er mes­sen­ger apps don’t have the same kinds of dilem­mas. But the users of mes­sen­ger apps expect them to work in a cer­tain way and behave in a cer­tain way. So how do you han­dle those chal­lenges with exist­ing stan­dards? And to be pos­i­tive about it, I think that design­ers and artists have a unique role in soci­ety in help­ing social val­ues be asso­ci­at­ed with on one hand the passé. You get to say what con­clu­sions we’ve already come to as a soci­ety, what is tacky, what is old fash­ioned ways of think­ing about the world. We get to do that as design­ers and artists, and I think that’s an incred­i­ble pow­er we should­n’t abuse, and I think not abus­ing it means embrac­ing pri­va­cy and encryp­tion as a mat­ter of social val­ue I guess is how I would phrase that.

Sinclair Brody: Harlo, what’s your per­spec­tive? What are the chal­lenges Technologists and design­ers face in col­lab­o­rat­ing on the cre­ation of privacy-preserving technologies.

Holmes: First off, tak­ing pri­va­cy and secu­ri­ty into your own hands as an end user is not always easy, and I find it a lit­tle bit dis­ap­point­ing that a lot of apps that you might down­load make it seem as if it were as easy as installing an app and start­ing chat­ting. For the most part, I think that one, we could as a com­mu­ni­ty who is privacy-forward and focused or what­ev­er, put pres­sure on app builders in order to incor­po­rate cer­tain libraries that we know work and work well, and to actu­al just press the dia­logue on that. And also, from a design per­spec­tive, although I’m def­i­nite­ly not a design­er at all, design could go a long way in order to hold a user’s hand where need be in order to get them where they need to be in order to take pri­va­cy and encryp­tion and secu­ri­ty, etc. into their own hands.

Also, one thing that I think is actu­al­ly real­ly real­ly suc­cess­ful. Maybe you guys had­n’t noticed this, maybe you have, but your Twitter direct mes­sages are of unlim­it­ed length, which actu­al­ly makes it a per­fect vec­tor for a PGP con­ver­sa­tion. But those are lit­tle, lit­tle winks to peo­ple who are privacy-focused to say that we have peo­ple on design staff who might actu­al­ly have thought about this and care about this. And putting in lit­tle Easter eggs here and there— Oh, also, side-note. Twitter like years ago enable you to proxy over SOCKS, so you could poten­tial­ly send tweets over Tor, which is interesting.

That said (That might’ve been a lot of jar­gon for peo­ple in the audi­ence. I’m very sor­ry. Deeply sor­ry.) there are Easter eggs that you can find in tech­nolo­gies that are already real­ly real­ly pop­u­lar that, depend­ing on your knowl­edge and depend­ing on where you find your infor­ma­tion and how that knowl­edge spreads, you might actu­al­ly up your game security-wise. So hav­ing the option to play it safe but also enabling users who want to swim in the deep end of the pool is actu­al­ly real­ly real­ly cool and some­thing that I would promote.

Sinclair Brody: Amy, what’s our path forward?

Elliot: I’m glad you asked, Scout. I already gave the pitch about the glass jar there, if you’re inter­est­ed in this. I’m par­tic­u­lar­ly look­ing to con­nect with user expe­ri­ence design­ers and inter­ac­tion design­ers that are work­ing on secu­ri­ty and pri­va­cy, that’re in that deep end of the pool and that’re the peo­ple mak­ing these Easter eggs. I’d like to fig­ure out how we as a com­mu­ni­ty can believe in peo­ple and give peo­ple the good expe­ri­ences that they want, where pri­va­cy and secu­ri­ty are pos­i­tives that bring peo­ple plea­sure and confidence.

Sinclair Brody: Alright. Well, thank all three of you. Once again, the per­spec­tive that you heard from these three amaz­ing peo­ple is just the start of the con­ver­sa­tion, so find them after­ward, and pick their brains. Particularly pick Harlo’s brain about all those gob­bledy­gook words she was using, because they’re real­ly useful.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.