Court filing
Public version of Exhibit A-13 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 151.13)
Filed January 26, 2023 in Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation; one of 127 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-01-26 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 151-13 · 2023-01-26 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
EXHIBIT A-13
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
___________________________
CAT BROOKS and RASHEED )
SHABAZZ, individually and )
on behalf of all others )
similarly situated, )
) Case No.
Plaintiffs, ) 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
)
-vs- )
)
THOMSON REUTERS )
CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________)
****CONFIDENTIAL****
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
TAKEN REMOTELY VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE
OF
JOSEPH TUROW, PH.D.
AUGUST 26, 2022
11:03 A.M.
REPORTED BY:
DEBRA SAPIO LYONS, RDR, CRR, CRC, CCR, CLR, CPE
______________________________________________________
DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 232-0646
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 2
1
August 26, 2022
2
Videotaped deposition, taken remotely via
3
videoconference, of Joseph Turow, Ph.D., reported
4
remotely via Zoom Videoconference by Debra Sapio
5
Lyons, a Registered Diplomat Reporter, a Certified
6
Realtime Reporter, a Certified Realtime Captioner,
7
a Certified LiveNote Reporter, an Approved Reporter
8
of the United States District Court for the Eastern
9
District of Pennsylvania, a Certified Court
10
Reporter of the State of New Jersey, a Notary
11
Public of the States of New Jersey, Delaware and
12
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 65
1
would go into Google's marketplace and I would bid
2
to reach -- I would ask to reach certain X number
3
of types of people and Google would charge me for
4
it. And it would all be done electronically.
5
There would be no individual agents, people
6
involved in the process. It is a totally
7
electronic version of this kind of activity.
8
This is not the only way that it
9
happens. And, in fact, it is -- but the computer
10
has become the vehicle through which marketers are
11
reaching out to their audiences.
12
Q. And how is the new advertising industry
13
defining your identity and your world?
14
A. Well, in the sense that by -- there --
15
there has been an increasing ability to -- to
16
connect huge numbers of data points about people
17
and by doing that personas get created which then
18
define people's identity.
19
I'm being defined when an advertiser --
20
whether while I walk through a supermarket or when
21
I'm going on line, if an advertiser connects a
22
whole variety of dots and makes some presumptions
12
Q.
And how is the new advertising industry
13
defining your identity and your world?
14
A.
Well, in the sense that by -- there --
15
there has been an increasing ability to -- to
16
connect huge numbers of data points about people
17
and by doing that personas get created which then
18
define people's identity.
19
I'm being defined when an advertiser --
20
whether while I walk through a supermarket or when
21
I'm going on line, if an advertiser connects a
22
whole variety of dots and makes some presumptions
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 66
1
about me, for example, then I -- I am defined in
2
that way. And to that extent, I see certain ideas
3
about the world, certain ads that are sent to me,
4
certain discounts that are sent to me that are not
5
sent to other people because of that.
6
Q. And is this a common practice?
7
A. It happens every minute. It's
8
happening as we speak.
9
Q. By how many companies?
10
A. Millions.
11
Q. And this interferes with people's right
12
to control their information?
13
A. Yes, it does.
14
Q. And it violates their right to be let
15
alone?
16
A. Yes, it does.
17
Q. Just a couple more. Niche Envy:
18
Marketing Discrimination in a [sic] Digital Age.
19
What's this one about?
20
A. That's more about the -- the rise of
21
target marketing.
22
Q. What is target marketing?
1
about me, for example, then I -- I am defined in
2
that way. And to that extent, I see certain ideas
3
about the world, certain ads that are sent to me,
4
certain discounts that are sent to me that are not
5
sent to other people because of that.
6
Q.
And is this a common practice?
7
A.
It happens every minute. It's
8
happening as we speak.
9
Q.
By how many companies?
10
A.
Millions.
11
Q.
And this interferes with people's right
12
to control their information?
13
A.
Yes, it does.
14
Q.
And it violates their right to be let
15
alone?
16
A.
Yes, it does.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 67
1
A. Target marketing is the -- the
2
beginnings of what I talked about with respect to
3
The Daily You. It's the -- the beginnings of
4
trying to see society as not large chunks of
5
people, but rather particular types of people who
6
might be reached in very specific ways.
7
Q. In order to sell them products or
8
services?
9
A. Or other things, yes. Or sell them to
10
other companies, yes.
11
Q. Marketing discrimination in the digital
12
world, what does "marketing discrimination" mean in
13
this context?
14
A. It has two meanings. One is marketers
15
are literally discriminating among individuals
16
through this activity and the other is prejudicial
17
discrimination can take place. People can be --
18
meet prejudice based upon the way marketers choose
19
to link their data and -- and relate to them.
20
Q. Can you give me an example of that?
21
A. Sure. If you're tagged as somebody
22
who's low income and maybe involved in criminal
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 6 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 68
1
activity, you're not likely to get the discounts
2
that I'm likely to get.
3
Q. And this -- is it fair to say that this
4
activity -- well, let me back up a step.
5
How common is this now?
6
A. With some -- some caveats, very common.
7
Q. What do you mean by "very common"?
8
A. This happens every day, all the time.
9
Q. And it violates people's right to
10
control their information?
11
A. It has that implication, yes.
12
Q. And it violates their right to be let
13
alone?
14
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
15
Q. And so all of these books describe how
16
retailers, marketers, advertisers violate people's
17
right to control their information and to be let
18
alone; correct?
19
A. They -- in -- in sequence, they -- they
20
describe a trajectory of -- of -- a historical
21
trajectory that moves in that direction, yes.
22
Q. You -- okay. Last -- last question and
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 7 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 69
1
we can take a quick break.
2
Page 2, second paragraph mentions
3
nine -- it's about -- it's -- it's the first full
4
paragraph, about four lines down --
5
A. Uh-huh.
6
Q. -- that references the nine major
7
national surveys that you testified to earlier in
8
your deposition.
9
These are national surveys of the
10
American public?
11
A. Yes, they are.
12
Q. Why survey the American public?
13
A. Why not?
14
Q. What is the value of a survey?
15
A. The value of a survey is to find out
16
what people think and what they know with respect
17
to a particular topic.
18
Q. I see. Let's nail down these surveys
19
and relate them, if we can, to your work in this
20
case.
21
First question is: Are your opinions
22
in this case based on the results of any of these
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 8 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 70
1
surveys?
2
A. I'd say yes.
3
Q. How so?
4
A. We have found consistently that
5
Americans -- and not just we, other companies as
6
well, organizations, that Americans really do want
7
to control, in huge percentages, want to control
8
the data that companies have about them.
9
MS. ZEMAN: Ms. Fahringer --
10
MS. FAHRINGER: Yes.
11
MS. ZEMAN: -- you had said that we
12
would take a break after talking about the
13
books. Are we about to take that break?
14
MS. FAHRINGER: No, not yet. We're
15
just in the middle of a line of questioning.
16
Hold on one question -- one -- one moment.
17
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
18
Q. Professor Turow, is it fair to say that
19
Americans also believe a loss of control has
20
already happened?
21
A. Many do, yes.
22
Q. When you say "many do," do you mean
18
Q.
Professor Turow, is it fair to say that
19
Americans also believe a loss of control has
20
already happened?
21
A.
Many do, yes.
22
Q.
When you say "many do," do you mean
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 9 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 71
1
many Americans do feel that they have already lost
2
control of their information?
3
A. Their ability to control their
4
information. They have lost the ability to control
5
their information.
6
Q. These -- couple more questions on the
7
surveys and then we will take a break.
8
Did these surveys, these nine surveys
9
you conducted, did they regard the CLEAR platform?
10
A. No.
11
Q. I see. Did they concern Thomson
12
Reuters?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Did they concern a product or platform
15
that was similar to CLEAR?
16
A. Not -- not similar to CLEAR, no.
17
Q. Okay. And final few questions.
18
You didn't -- just for clarity, you
19
didn't conduct a survey in connection with your
20
engagement in this case; correct?
21
A. Correct.
22
Q. You didn't survey consumers or the
1
many Americans do feel that they have already lost
2
control of their information?
3
A.
Their ability to control their
4
information. They have lost the ability to control
5
their information.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 10 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 72
1
American public or California residents in
2
connection with this case; correct?
3
A. Correct.
4
Q. And do you have any plans to conduct
5
such a survey?
6
A. I have no plans.
7
Q. Why not?
8
A. For the particular opinion I was asked
9
to make I don't think that's necessary.
10
Q. Why not?
11
A. There -- the -- it is so clear what
12
CLEAR is doing that the harm of -- the privacy
13
harms that it is creating among Californians is --
14
is not at issue here in my mind. They -- the
15
company is clearly harming Californians by taking
16
away their ability to control their information,
17
not even really telling them about what's going on,
18
and offering their data to other companies without
19
serious recourse.
20
Q. Thank you, Professor Turow.
21
MS. FAHRINGER: We are ready for the
22
break now.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 11 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 73
1
THE WITNESS: Okay.
2
MS. FAHRINGER: And shall we -- what's
3
your -- we can go off the record now.
4
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. The time
5
is 12:14 -- 12:14 p.m. Off the record.
6
(A recess is held from 12:14 p.m. to
7
12:22 p.m.)
8
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the
9
record. The time is 12:22 p.m.
10
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
11
Q. Professor Turow, you co-authored a
12
working paper entitled The Trade Off Fallacy: How
13
Marketers Are Misrepresenting American Consumers
14
and Opening Them Up to Exploitation.
15
That's cited in your report. Do you
16
recall that?
17
A. Oh, yeah.
18
Q. And this cites an empirical survey that
19
you conducted; right?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. What was the purpose of that survey?
22
A. Well, marketers have historically
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 12 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 74
1
talked about the idea that the public gives --
2
there's something that's been called a paradox, a
3
privacy paradox, and we were trying to see if that
4
were the case.
5
The privacy paradox is that -- that
6
people will give over their information because --
7
because they're getting something in return from
8
certain marketers. Not all marketers, but certain
9
marketers.
10
And we hypothesized that it was
11
something different from that. That it was that
12
people actually were resigned to their data being
13
taken. Not that they liked it by any means. And,
14
in fact, we show that that's the case.
15
And this -- this idea of resignation
16
has been picked up. It's -- it's probably one of
17
my most cited ideas. Others have replicated it as
18
far as I can tell.
19
Q. And this -- this is a survey that you
20
conducted; correct?
21
A. Yes, it is.
22
Q. And this is -- is this the survey where
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 13 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 75
1
you concluded that more than half of Americans
2
believed they have already lost control of their
3
information?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. At what point did this loss of control
6
happen?
7
Was that when the consumer interacted
8
with a marketer or advertiser? At what point?
9
A. It's hard for me to say.
10
Q. Why?
11
A. I -- because it's a historical process.
12
This is not something that happens to the
13
individual. And you notice that while we said more
14
than half, we also said that the huge proportions
15
of Americans say they want to control information
16
that companies have about them.
17
Q. So your testimony, I'm reading -- I'm
18
reading the transcript right now.
19
The question is: "At what point did
20
the loss of control happen?"
21
The answer was: "It's hard for me to
22
say."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 14 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 76
1
Can you be any more specific about --
2
for an individual, on an individual level, can you
3
identify when a loss of control of their
4
information happens?
5
A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
6
Q. Okay. Is there a point where someone
7
has control of their information?
8
A. That would vary. And we're not talking
9
about an individual here. We're talking about a
10
societal dynamic.
11
Q. Right. But the survey was of
12
individuals; right?
13
A. But the conclusions had to do with the
14
larger society.
15
Q. Well, let's pull up your survey.
16
MS. FAHRINGER: Tab O. This will be
17
Exhibit 2.
18
(Exhibit 2, multipage document titled
19
The Tradeoff Fallacy - How Marketers Are
20
Misrepresenting American Consumers and
21
Opening Them up to Exploitation, is marked
22
for identification.)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 15 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 77
1
MS. FAHRINGER: If the videographer can
2
pull that up.
3
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
4
Q. Professor Turow, is this the paper that
5
you co-authored that refers to the survey we were
6
just discussing?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. And I'm going to ask you to turn to --
9
well, just a quick overview.
10
Is it fair to say that your findings --
11
that the study revealed that more than half of
12
Americans don't want to lose control over their
13
information but also believe this loss of control
14
has already happened?
15
A. Those two points together, yes.
16
Q. Yes. And this was the view of the
17
individual people who responded -- who were the
18
subjects of your survey; correct?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Did this survey draw any conclusions
21
about when they believed the loss of control had
22
happened?
4
Q.
Professor Turow, is this the paper that
5
you co-authored that refers to the survey we were
6
just discussing?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
And I'm going to ask you to turn to --
9
well, just a quick overview.
10
Is it fair to say that your findings --
11
that the study revealed that more than half of
12
Americans don't want to lose control over their
13
information but also believe this loss of control
14
has already happened?
15
A.
Those two points together, yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 16 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 78
1
A. No.
2
Q. I see. Do you have any -- any basis to
3
draw a conclusion one way or another as to when
4
Americans believe they lost control of their
5
information?
6
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
7
ambiguous.
8
THE WITNESS: It's a very difficult
9
question; and I guess the answer is no, the
10
way you phrased it.
11
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
12
Q. Why is it a difficult question?
13
A. To answer that question would require
14
some fascinating important historical
15
understandings. It's not something that one can go
16
to a family and say, "When did you lose control of
17
your information?" It's not as simple as that.
18
Q. Why not?
19
A. Because the -- while the unit of
20
analysis here in terms of survey is the individual,
21
people live in a society and -- and things happen
22
not just because of them, but because of what's
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 17 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 79
1
happening around them.
2
Q. I think I see. So would it vary based
3
on the person?
4
A. It might.
5
Q. Why? Can you give me some examples of
6
that?
7
A. Some people may have been introduced to
8
the internet later than other people and have
9
understood that -- or understood digital media
10
differently. It just depends.
11
But we're getting into the individual
12
level of analysis here. And the larger point of
13
that paper is not really about the individual.
14
It's about the larger society and where it's going.
15
Q. I'm now going to switch to another
16
piece you wrote, which -- so we're done -- we're
17
done with this exhibit.
18
MS. FAHRINGER: We're going to move to
19
another one, which is going to be, for the
20
court reporter's benefit, it's Tab Y as in
21
yes. And this will be Exhibit 3.
22
(Exhibit 3, multipage document titled
2
Q.
I think I see. So would it vary based
3
on the person?
4
A.
It might.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 18 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 80
1
Let's Retire the Phrase 'Privacy Policy' is
2
marked for identification.)
3
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
4
Q. So, Professor Turow, we'll pull that
5
one up. And this one you might need to download
6
this in order to read it a little more carefully,
7
but you -- take your time, familiarize yourself
8
with that document and let me know if you recognize
9
this as a op-ed piece that you wrote for the New
10
York Times.
11
A. Yes, I do.
12
Q. You do. So you wrote this opinion
13
piece for the New York Times on August 20th -- or
14
rather, it was published August 20th, 2018?
15
A. Okay.
16
Q. Well, you say "Okay." I'm not asking
17
you to agree with me.
18
I'm saying, is this, in fact, the piece
19
you wrote?
20
A. This is the piece. I can't read the
21
date, but I'll take your word for the date, yes.
22
Q. All right. Well, I will -- I will
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 19 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 81
1
actually represent to you that the date on this is
2
October [sic] 20th, 2018.
3
MS. FAHRINGER: And if the videographer
4
can zoom in to that point right above that
5
image.
6
There we go.
7
THE WITNESS: Yes.
8
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
9
Q. August 20th, 2018. And this is, in
10
fact, your -- this reflects your opinion I take it?
11
A. Yes, it does.
12
Q. And that opinion was based on your
13
expertise and experience, the same expertise and
14
experience you're relying on in this case?
15
A. It's related to my expertise and
16
experience.
17
Q. And is it your view that it is lawful
18
and, in fact, common for websites to trade most
19
types of information about us without asking?
20
A. That's a complicated question the way
21
you're asking it.
22
The answer is -- relates to privacy
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 20 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 82
1
policies.
2
Q. So is it true that it is lawful and
3
common for websites to trade most types of
4
information about us without asking?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. And does that diminish a person's right
7
to control their information?
8
A. It does.
9
Q. And also it diminishes a person's right
10
to be let alone?
11
A. By extension.
12
Q. And how does it do that?
13
A. Presumably some companies would use
14
their data to create problems for individuals, in
15
terms of the ways in which those people are -- are
16
advertised to or otherwise discriminated against in
17
certain -- certain ways that could cause trouble,
18
yes.
19
Q. So take, for example, a website's
20
privacy policy that allows third-party companies to
21
collect certain information when you visit our
22
websites or use our mobile applications which allow
2
Q.
So is it true that it is lawful and
3
common for websites to trade most types of
4
information about us without asking?
5
A.
Yes.
6
Q.
And does that diminish a person's right
7
to control their information?
8
A.
It does.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 21 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 112
1
applicable law in this case requires a court to
2
weigh the harm to Californians against the utility
3
of the challenged business practice?
4
A. I understand that.
5
Q. Are you offering any opinion in this
6
case with respect to weighing the harm to
7
Californians against the utility of the Thomson
8
Reuters practices that are at issue here?
9
A. No.
10
Q. So your methodology doesn't undertake
11
that balancing exercise I take it?
12
A. I have not been asked to do that.
13
Q. Okay. A couple more questions and then
14
we can take a break.
15
Your -- I think you -- apologies if
16
you've answered this before, but just to make sure,
17
does your opinion purport to measure or quantify
18
any of the benefits of CLEAR?
19
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
20
answered.
21
THE WITNESS: No.
22
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
5
Q.
Are you offering any opinion in this
6
case with respect to weighing the harm to
7
Californians against the utility of the Thomson
8
Reuters practices that are at issue here?
9
A.
No.
10
Q.
So your methodology doesn't undertake
11
that balancing exercise I take it?
12
A.
I have not been asked to do that.
13
Q.
Okay. A couple more questions and then
14
we can take a break.
15
Your -- I think you -- apologies if
16
you've answered this before, but just to make sure,
17
does your opinion purport to measure or quantify
18
any of the benefits of CLEAR?
19
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
20
answered.
21
THE WITNESS: No.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 22 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 113
1
Q. Does your opinion offer any methodology
2
to determine whether any particular person benefits
3
from CLEAR?
4
A. That's not what I was asked to do.
5
Q. That's what I thought, but I'm just
6
making sure.
7
So your methodology -- your opinion
8
doesn't offer any methodology to determine whether
9
any particular person benefits from CLEAR; correct?
10
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
11
answered.
12
THE WITNESS: Correct.
13
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
14
Q. All right. Your opinion doesn't
15
purport to measure or quantify any utility of
16
CLEAR; correct?
17
A. I'm not measuring, quantifying any of
18
that.
19
Q. Understood. I'm just -- I'm just
20
making sure that we've got -- before we go more
21
deeply into your report, I want to make sure what
22
we're going to be talking about.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 23 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 114
1
A. Sure.
2
Q. So just for clarity, I want to make
3
sure that your opinion -- I think you answered this
4
but just confirm it, your opinion doesn't purport
5
to measure or quantify any utility of CLEAR;
6
correct?
7
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
8
answered.
9
THE WITNESS: Correct.
10
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
11
Q. And your opinion doesn't offer any
12
methodology to determine whether CLEAR has utility
13
for any particular person; correct?
14
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
15
answered.
16
THE WITNESS: Correct.
17
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
18
Q. Okay. You're not purporting to offer
19
an opinion as to balancing utility of Thomson
20
Reuters' conduct in this case against the harm you
21
consider to be caused by CLEAR; correct?
22
A. That's not what I was asked to do.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 24 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 126
1
I was looking for the citation where
2
your opinion discusses the California ballot
3
Proposition 11.
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Okay. Anywhere else in your report
6
where you discuss consumer preferences than those
7
two locations?
8
A. Those are the specific areas.
9
Q. All right. Now, I'm going to change
10
the focus to the word "valuation," consumer
11
valuations with respect to privacy.
12
Does your opinion in this case address
13
consumers' valuations of privacy?
14
A. What --
15
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague,
16
ambiguous.
17
THE WITNESS: Yeah. What do you mean
18
by valuations?
19
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
20
Q. How consumers value it, the value they
21
place on it.
22
A. The -- not in a quantitative way, but
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 25 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 127
1
the very idea that people say they want to control
2
their information is evidence that they value
3
their -- the control of their information.
4
Q. I understand. That -- great.
5
The question is whether there's any
6
discussion -- I don't think there is, but the
7
question is whether there's any discussion in your
8
mind, in your report, and in your opinion in this
9
case with respect to consumer valuations of
10
privacy.
11
MS. ZEMAN: Objection to form.
12
THE WITNESS: I -- I think you're
13
trying to make a distinction that's not
14
clear.
15
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
16
Q. What is that?
17
A. You -- I'm not sure what you mean by
18
consumers' valuation of their privacy.
19
Q. Yeah. I'll define that.
20
What I mean by that is how much value
21
they place -- a consumer places on the consumer's
22
privacy.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 26 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 128
1
I don't think your report -- I think
2
you've testified that your report doesn't purport
3
to quantify that value in any way with respect to
4
any consumer, but I don't want to be wrong in that
5
assumption.
6
A. Uh-huh.
7
Q. So is that correct or not?
8
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
9
ambiguous.
10
THE WITNESS: It -- earlier, I said
11
that I'm not quantifying the -- the amount of
12
harm that Californians have. We didn't talk
13
about valuation of privacy.
14
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
15
Q. Okay.
16
A. It's a really complicated position and
17
there's nothing in what I wrote about that
18
discusses that. It's not part of the case that I
19
was asked to talk about.
20
Q. I understand. I wanted to make sure,
21
but now I understand. Thank you.
22
And just to recap, your report in this
1
I don't think your report -- I think
2
you've testified that your report doesn't purport
3
to quantify that value in any way with respect to
4
any consumer, but I don't want to be wrong in that
5
assumption.
6
A.
Uh-huh.
7
Q.
So is that correct or not?
8
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
9
ambiguous.
10
THE WITNESS: It -- earlier, I said
11
that I'm not quantifying the -- the amount of
12
harm that Californians have. We didn't talk
13
about valuation of privacy.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 27 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 146
1
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
2
Q. Yes, let's go back to Page 5. Are you
3
there?
4
A. I don't think that Henry has gotten
5
there yet. I'm at Page 5 in my hard copy.
6
Q. Okay. Terrific. In the first --
7
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: So this is -- sorry.
8
This is Page 5 up.
9
THE WITNESS: Amy, there's only one
10
here. I don't know -- no, on the -- I'm
11
afraid to touch your computer. Sorry.
12
Okay. We got it. Sorry. Good.
13
Something glitched.
14
MS. ZEMAN: Just lost the Zoom page for
15
him.
16
THE WITNESS: But all right. So here
17
we are. I see it.
18
Thank you, Henry.
19
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
20
Q. In the first full paragraph at Page 5,
21
you state, "In my opinion, Thomson Reuters'
22
operation of the CLEAR product affects privacy
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 28 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 147
1
interests of Californians-the right to control
2
personal information and to be let alone-in such a
3
way that all Californians whose information is
4
accessible through CLEAR are harmed."
5
Did I read that correctly?
6
A. Yes, ma'am.
7
Q. What is it about the operation of the
8
CLEAR platform that causes this harm?
9
A. The CLEAR platform does not allow
10
Californians to control their information and --
11
and it also provides other companies under certain
12
circumstances with the ability to get people's
13
information. So in -- there's a lack -- a loss of
14
control that is quite clear and quite problematical
15
which is a privacy harm.
16
There's also the economic privacy harm
17
which is the idea that people should have the right
18
to use their data for economic purposes if -- if
19
they -- if they so please and -- and CLEAR is
20
taking that right away from them without
21
permission.
22
I mean, they're a bad actor is what it
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 29 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 148
1
comes down to.
2
Q. When you refer to the operation of the
3
CLEAR platform and when you refer to information
4
about people in the CLEAR platform, is it -- are
5
you referring to all information that the CLEAR
6
platform has about a person?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. Regardless of its source?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. Regardless of whether that information
11
is publicly available?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. Regardless of whether it was supplied
14
by a putative class member to a third party?
15
A. Oh, yes.
16
Q. And with -- with -- without regard to
17
whether that class member has any actual objection
18
to the information being made available in CLEAR?
19
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
20
ambiguous.
21
THE WITNESS: The issue is not an
22
individual class member. The issue is the
2
Q.
When you refer to the operation of the
3
CLEAR platform and when you refer to information
4
about people in the CLEAR platform, is it -- are
5
you referring to all information that the CLEAR
6
platform has about a person?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Regardless of its source?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Regardless of whether that information
11
is publicly available?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Regardless of whether it was supplied
14
by a putative class member to a third party?
15
A.
Oh, yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 30 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 164
1
to pin the notion of opinion on me for a factual
2
activity, but the larger issue is that Californians
3
do not have the ability to control the information
4
that CLEAR has about it and that CLEAR gives access
5
to other companies.
6
Q. I think you just answered my question.
7
I think you just added another step which is
8
terrific. We can talk about that as well.
9
And I'm going to make that the fifth
10
step which is without affording Californians the
11
ability to control whether or not CLEAR does that?
12
Is that a fair summary of what you just
13
said?
14
A. Without affording Californians the
15
ability to control the information that CLEAR uses.
16
They don't have any choice and knowledge frankly
17
about what CLEAR is doing and that CLEAR is taking
18
their data. They simply don't.
19
Q. And that's what I'm trying to make sure
20
I'm understanding about your criticism of CLEAR.
21
It is that it's without affording
22
Californians the ability to control the information
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 31 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 165
1
that CLEAR uses?
2
A. Takes.
3
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, misstates
4
testimony.
5
THE WITNESS: Not uses. Takes.
6
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
7
Q. Okay. That CLEAR takes.
8
So without affording Californians the
9
ability to control the information that CLEAR
10
takes; is that --
11
A. Yes --
12
THE REPORTER: I didn't hear the end of
13
your answer.
14
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I said yes,
15
it's about what Californians take -- what
16
CLEAR takes about Californians.
17
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
18
Q. So for clarity, it's without affording
19
Californians the ability to control what data
20
Thomson Reuters aggregates about people; is that
21
fair?
22
A. Takes about people.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 32 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 166
1
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
2
ambiguous.
3
Give me a moment --
4
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
5
MS. ZEMAN: -- to put the objections on
6
the record.
7
THE WITNESS: It's -- it's about
8
what -- what -- it's about the information
9
that -- Californians do not have control over
10
the information that -- what Thomson Reuters
11
takes about them.
12
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
13
Q. When does CLEAR take that information
14
from Californians?
15
A. When it licenses databases, when it
16
uses public databases, when it collects its own
17
information.
18
Q. Okay. And is this then in the first
19
step, this step of aggregating data about people?
20
A. It's involved in that first step, yes.
21
Q. Okay. And that was my -- that was what
22
I was just making sure I understood. What your
13
Q.
When does CLEAR take that information
14
from Californians?
15
A.
When it licenses databases, when it
16
uses public databases, when it collects its own
17
information.
18
Q.
Okay. And is this then in the first
19
step, this step of aggregating data about people?
20
A.
It's involved in that first step, yes.
21
Q.
Okay. And that was my -- that was what
22
I was just making sure I understood. What your
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 33 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 167
1
criticism is, is that at the very outset, at the
2
point at which CLEAR collects or aggregates data
3
about people, at that point, CLEAR -- your
4
criticism of CLEAR is that it doesn't afford
5
Californians the ability to control what
6
information Thomson Reuters collects about them; is
7
that correct?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. Okay.
10
A. And that's a privacy harm.
11
Q. And that's a privacy harm. I under --
12
and that -- and for clarity, that privacy harm is a
13
harm to people's right to control their
14
information; correct?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. And their right to be let alone; is
17
that correct?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. All right. And that that privacy harm
20
is suffered by people at the point at which Thomson
21
Reuters aggregates or collects those people's data;
22
is that correct?
1
criticism is, is that at the very outset, at the
2
point at which CLEAR collects or aggregates data
3
about people, at that point, CLEAR -- your
4
criticism of CLEAR is that it doesn't afford
5
Californians the ability to control what
6
information Thomson Reuters collects about them; is
7
that correct?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
Okay.
10
A.
And that's a privacy harm.
11
Q.
And that's a privacy harm. I under --
12
and that -- and for clarity, that privacy harm is a
13
harm to people's right to control their
14
information; correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And their right to be let alone; is
17
that correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
All right. And that that privacy harm
20
is suffered by people at the point at which Thomson
21
Reuters aggregates or collects those people's data;
22
is that correct?
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 34 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 168
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. Okay. And so that's when that privacy
3
harm is suffered by -- by Californians; correct?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. If Thomson Reuters stopped at that
6
point without connecting the bits of information or
7
sharing it or selling the information, if Thomson
8
Reuters merely aggregated the data, collected the
9
data about people, would that privacy harm still
10
exist?
11
A. Yes.
12
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, incomplete
13
hypothetical.
14
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
15
Q. Okay. And it is that privacy -- I'm
16
sorry. I thought you said something,
17
Professor Turow. Did --
18
A. No.
19
Q. Okay. You might need to get just a
20
little bit closer to the microphone. You're
21
cutting out --
22
A. Sure.
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Okay. And so that's when that privacy
3
harm is suffered by -- by Californians; correct?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
If Thomson Reuters stopped at that
6
point without connecting the bits of information or
7
sharing it or selling the information, if Thomson
8
Reuters merely aggregated the data, collected the
9
data about people, would that privacy harm still
10
exist?
11
A.
Yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 35 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 174
1
Let's talk about the privacy harms and
2
just make sure we've got your -- that I understand
3
what your opinion is on privacy harm.
4
So for clarity, the privacy harm you
5
identify in your report, I believe you testified
6
earlier that it is -- and it is, in fact, in your
7
report -- this is a violation of the right to
8
control one's information and to be let alone; is
9
that correct?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. All right. And you also testified that
12
you're not rendering a legal opinion in this case.
13
So what is the nature of the rights you
14
are talking about in your report? Are they legal
15
rights? Moral rights? Psychological rights?
16
What -- what type of right are you
17
talking about?
18
A. I would characterize them as ethical
19
and social.
20
Q. An ethical or social right?
21
A. And social.
22
Q. And social right. An ethical and
18
A.
I would characterize them as ethical
19
and social.
20
Q.
An ethical or social right?
21
A.
And social.
22
Q.
And social right. An ethical and
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 36 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 175
1
social right?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Okay. And you testified all right to a
4
number of examples that -- a number of examples
5
where people's right to control their information
6
is diminished; correct?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. Can you give me just a recap at a high
9
level of what -- what are some of those examples?
10
A. I can do that.
11
Q. Thank you. Please do.
12
A. The -- I talked about various companies
13
that diminish the ability of a person to control
14
her or his information.
15
Q. And the companies you testified to
16
earlier that diminish that right included companies
17
like Google and WarnerMedia.
18
Is that the testimony you're referring
19
to?
20
A. I was talking about Google and -- in
21
some cases, and FaceBook and WarnerMedia I
22
mentioned as -- as a company that is in the
1
social right?
2
A.
Yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 37 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 184
1
A. Well, my opinion in the case relates to
2
the larger problem of Californians losing the right
3
to control their -- the information about them and
4
the -- the privacy harm that that creates.
5
If you want to talk about other privacy
6
harms, that's your prerogative. But this is the
7
mandate that I had for this report.
8
Q. I understand. And my question is quite
9
a simple one. It's whether or not your opinion in
10
this case -- whether you -- whether or not you are
11
offering an opinion in this case with respect to
12
whether anyone suffered financial consequences as
13
the result of the CLEAR platform.
14
Do you understand?
15
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
16
answered.
17
THE WITNESS: I'm not offering an
18
opinion in this report.
19
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
20
Q. Or in this case; correct?
21
A. If you want to equate the case with the
22
report, that's fine.
8
Q.
I understand. And my question is quite
9
a simple one. It's whether or not your opinion in
10
this case -- whether you -- whether or not you are
11
offering an opinion in this case with respect to
12
whether anyone suffered financial consequences as
13
the result of the CLEAR platform.
14
Do you understand?
15
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
16
answered.
17
THE WITNESS: I'm not offering an
18
opinion in this report.
19
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
20
Q.
Or in this case; correct?
21
A.
If you want to equate the case with the
22
report, that's fine.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 38 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 185
1
Q. Well, you have done that,
2
Professor Turow, have you not, when you told me
3
that the report encapsulates your opinions in this
4
case?
5
A. To the extent that you just said that,
6
the answer is yes.
7
Q. Are your opinions in this case -- do
8
you have opinions in this case that are not
9
reflected in your report?
10
A. I --
11
Q. If so, what are they?
12
A. My opinions relate to the contents of
13
this report for the purposes of this case, yes.
14
Q. All right. So your opinions in this
15
case are limited to what you set forth in your
16
report; is that fair?
17
A. For the purposes of this case, yes.
18
Q. Okay. Next question.
19
Are you offering an opinion in this
20
case that any person suffered a loss of any
21
property as the result of the CLEAR platform?
22
A. I am not for this case.
1
Q.
Well, you have done that,
2
Professor Turow, have you not, when you told me
3
that the report encapsulates your opinions in this
4
case?
5
A.
To the extent that you just said that,
6
the answer is yes.
7
Q.
Are your opinions in this case -- do
8
you have opinions in this case that are not
9
reflected in your report?
10
A.
I --
11
Q.
If so, what are they?
12
A.
My opinions relate to the contents of
13
this report for the purposes of this case, yes.
14
Q.
All right. So your opinions in this
15
case are limited to what you set forth in your
16
report; is that fair?
17
A.
For the purposes of this case, yes.
18
Q.
Okay. Next question.
19
Are you offering an opinion in this
20
case that any person suffered a loss of any
21
property as the result of the CLEAR platform?
22
A.
I am not for this case.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 39 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 186
1
Q. Okay. Are you offering -- all right.
2
We talked earlier about the fact that
3
you're not offering a legal opinion in this case,
4
that you're not offering an opinion with respect to
5
quantifying the benefits of CLEAR. I did not ask
6
you, but I will ask you now whether you're offering
7
an opinion in this case regarding quantification of
8
the amount of harm caused by the CLEAR platform or
9
by Thomson Reuters.
10
Do you understand the question?
11
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, compound.
12
THE WITNESS: Quantification of the
13
harm caused by Thomson Reuters and CLEAR?
14
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
15
Q. Or -- or CLEAR. Either one.
16
A. All right. Please --
17
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, compound.
18
THE WITNESS: Please ask the question
19
again.
20
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
21
Q. Sure. I'll break it down.
22
So are you offering an opinion in this
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 40 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 187
1
case regarding quantification of the harm caused by
2
the CLEAR platform?
3
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
4
answered.
5
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
6
quantification?
7
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
8
Q. Yeah. What I mean by that is, and --
9
and let's make sure we're on the same page with
10
respect to this.
11
I understand your opinion to be that
12
there is a fact of harm due to the CLEAR platform.
13
My question goes to whether you have quantified the
14
amount of harm with respect to the CLEAR platform.
15
Do you understand what I mean?
16
A. Beyond the idea that many, many people
17
suffer the harm, virtually all Californians, I
18
haven't quantified the amount of harm per person.
19
No, that was not part of my mandate.
20
Q. Understood. That's fine.
21
And, again, similar to the question
22
that we discussed with respect to benefits of
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 41 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 191
1
company is doing stuff which is beyond the
2
pale of -- of what most Americans and
3
Californians would accept.
4
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
5
Q. You testified that you'd need to know
6
the context. Why is that? What is it that you
7
would need to -- I'll withdraw that question.
8
What is it that you would need to know
9
about the context?
10
A. Well, I -- you know, you make up the
11
story about a person saying that she or he would
12
find it okay for -- for CLEAR to have her
13
information. We could tell stories about anything.
14
My larger point is from a -- from a
15
larger societal standpoint, what CLEAR is doing to
16
the large percentage of Californians is beyond the
17
pale. It's harmful from a privacy standpoint and
18
that's the issue here.
19
Q. Do you believe it's possible that some
20
Californians would have no objection to their
21
information being made available in CLEAR?
22
A. I have no idea.
19
Q.
Do you believe it's possible that some
20
Californians would have no objection to their
21
information being made available in CLEAR?
22
A.
I have no idea.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 42 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 192
1
Q. Okay. And I take it your methodology
2
doesn't have any way to identify those people;
3
correct?
4
A. That's not what I was asked to do.
5
Q. Understood. Do you believe that you
6
personally have been harmed by CLEAR?
7
A. I believe that CLEAR probably has
8
information about me, and if CLEAR has information
9
about me in its databases, I have been harmed by
10
CLEAR, yes.
11
Q. Okay. How do you know that you've been
12
harmed by CLEAR?
13
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, misstates
14
testimony.
15
THE WITNESS: The -- the harm -- again,
16
going by the statistics of -- that the -- the
17
depositions recounted, there is a very high
18
chance that I am ensnared in CLEAR's
19
database.
20
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
21
Q. So you're -- you are assuming -- if
22
it's true that your information is available via
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 43 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 193
1
the CLEAR platform, then you conclude that you have
2
been harmed by CLEAR; correct?
3
A. The idea of privacy harm is not being
4
able to control the information CLEAR has about me
5
and giving access to other companies. That's a
6
privacy harm. That's a harm.
7
Q. Do you have any view as to whether you
8
should be paid by Thomson Reuters for its use of
9
your information?
10
A. The larger issue stands. I have no
11
view on that and I think what Thomson Reuters is
12
doing is repugnant to the point of paying for the
13
use of information is not the point.
14
Q. Do you have any view as to whether
15
consumers ought to be paid by Thomson Reuters for
16
the use of their information?
17
A. My sense of that goes back to that
18
larger question of not being able to control their
19
information. We could create a scenario where
20
Thomson Reuters was a great citizen and, you know,
21
allowed for people to control their information,
22
but that's not the world we're talking about now.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 44 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 194
1
Q. So do you have any view as to whether
2
consumers ought to be paid by Thomson Reuters for
3
the use of their information?
4
A. No, I don't.
5
Q. Okay. I want to explore the right to
6
control one's information, a person's information,
7
and I want to make sure I understand what that
8
means.
9
A person's information, does that -- by
10
that do you mean to connote, like, ownership of the
11
information or merely that the -- or subject matter
12
that the information relates to a person?
13
Do you understand the question?
14
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, compound.
15
THE WITNESS: Could you explain -- you
16
did say two things there. Explain what you
17
mean.
18
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
19
Q. Yeah. What I mean is: I want to make
20
sure that -- that when you use the -- let me back
21
up a step.
22
You use the phrase "their information"
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 45 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 195
1
occasionally in your report; correct?
2
A. Yes --
3
Q. And --
4
A. -- information about them. That's a
5
short way of saying information about them.
6
Q. And that was what my question was going
7
to. So -- so the question really was just intended
8
to explore what that means.
9
And it sounds to me as though that's a
10
subject matter description. That is, that by
11
"their information" or "one's information," that
12
connotes that the information regards that
13
person --
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. -- is that correct?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Okay. And the right to control one's
18
information, is that the right to prevent --
19
when we're talking about the right to control, is
20
that the right to prevent people from doing certain
21
things?
22
Do you understand the question?
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 46 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 196
1
A. The right to control information means
2
the right to decide whether a company should even
3
have that information.
4
Q. Okay. So whether that -- whether
5
another person should even -- when you say "should
6
even have that information," do you mean should
7
even, like, read that information?
8
A. Should even take control of that
9
information.
10
Q. I see. So, for example, republish the
11
information or share the information? The right
12
to --
13
A. No. Have the information. Have that
14
information.
15
Q. Have it. Just to have it?
16
A. Yes, that's the whole idea here.
17
Q. The right to control your information
18
is the right -- is the right to prevent other
19
people from having your information?
20
A. Other people, other companies, yes.
21
Q. Okay. Does a person have a right to
22
control information about them that is publicly
1
A.
The right to control information means
2
the right to decide whether a company should even
3
have that information.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 47 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 197
1
available?
2
A. I would argue in a case like this, yes.
3
Q. Why?
4
A. Because by -- by linking that
5
information to other information, Thomson Reuters
6
is damaging, harming the privacy of the individual
7
in ways that go beyond the -- the -- the database
8
standing on its own.
9
Q. So a person has a right to control
10
public information under at least some
11
circumstances; is that fair?
12
A. A person has a right to control the
13
dissemination of public information by companies
14
and entities that are not the original entity that
15
collected that information.
16
Q. Okay. So the right to control the
17
dissemination of that information, does a person
18
have the right to control the collection, the
19
taking of that information?
20
Let me back up a step and ask a better
21
question that's more precise.
22
A. Uh-huh.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 48 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 198
1
Q. Does a person have a right to control
2
public information by preventing a company from
3
collecting that information?
4
Do you understand the question?
5
A. It is a privacy harm for a company to
6
collect information that is public without
7
permission.
8
Q. I see. And that permission must be
9
permission from the person that the information
10
regards?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. And the privacy harm you're referring
13
to here is the same harm discussed in your report;
14
that is, the diminishment of the right to control
15
one's information and the right to be let alone?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. And this right to control information,
18
would that extend to any information about a person
19
that is public?
20
A. You'd have to give me a specific
21
example.
22
Q. Let's just take name. Does that --
1
Q.
Does a person have a right to control
2
public information by preventing a company from
3
collecting that information?
4
Do you understand the question?
5
A.
It is a privacy harm for a company to
6
collect information that is public without
7
permission.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 49 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 199
1
does that extend to somebody's name?
2
A. I don't know how -- what you mean by
3
that.
4
Q. Does a person have a right to control
5
their name? That is, in other words, does a person
6
have a right to prevent a company from collecting
7
their name from public sources?
8
A. For what purpose?
9
Q. For any purpose.
10
A. I would say that the idea of a company
11
having my name could be problematical, yes. It
12
could -- it's a privacy harm.
13
Q. Same privacy harm that you discuss that
14
is the subject of your opinion in this case?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. I'm going to give you just an example
17
for me. Like do I have -- I've got brown hair. Do
18
I have the right to control how someone else would
19
describe me?
20
A. What do you mean by someone else?
21
Q. Let's just say a company then. Let's
22
say -- let's say -- well, let's start with an easy
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 50 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 366
1
CERTIFICATE
2
I, Debra Sapio Lyons, a Registered
Diplomat Reporter, a Certified Realtime Reporter, a
3
Certified Realtime Captioner, an Approved Reporter
of the United States District Court for the Eastern
4
District of Pennsylvania, a Certified Court
Reporter for the State of New Jersey; and Notary
5
Public do hereby certify:
6
That Joseph Turow, Ph.D., the witness
whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth,
7
appeared remotely via Zoom videoconference, was
remotely sworn by me and that such deposition is a
8
true record of the testimony given by such witness,
to the best of my ability and thereafter reduced to
9
typewriting under my direction.
I further certify that I am not related to
10
any of the parties to this action by blood or
marriage and that I am in no way interested in the
11
outcome of the matter.
12
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my
13
hand this 1st day of September, 2022.
14
15
16
17
18
19
_____________________
20
DEBRA SAPIO LYONS
21
CRR, RDR, CRC, CCR, CPE
22
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 51 of 55
October 10, 2022
Re:
Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
USDC Northern District of California – San Francisco Division
Deposition Errata for the Deposition of Joseph Turow (Deposition dated August 26,
2022, transcript received September 8, 2022)
To whom it may concern:
I, Joseph Turow, have reviewed the transcript of my deposition in Brooks et al. v. Thomson
Reuters Corp., Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EEMC, taken on August 26, 2022. Attached hereto is a
list of errata identified in the deposition transcript.
JOSEPH TUROW
DATE
2FWREHU
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 52 of 55
Joseph Turow Deposition Errata Sheet
Page:Line
Existing Testimony
Corrected Testimony
51:20
“FaceBook”
“Facebook”
52:2
“FaceBook”
“Facebook”
101:20
“HIPPAA”
“HIPAA”
103:9
“HIPPAA”
“HIPAA”
147:1
“Californians-the”
“Californians -- the”
147:2
“alone-in”
“alone -- in”
153:22
“My sense it’s an”
“My sense is it’s an”
216:9
“trotting”
“treading”
233:7
“clear”
“CLEAR”
235:16
“there isn’t large literature”
“there is large literature”
244:5
“do you ever”
“do you aver”
248:16
“all sociology”
“a sociologist”
273:16
“I would image”
“I would imagine”
296:17
“clear”
“CLEAR”
319:16-17
“her ability to a control.”
“her ability to control it.”
321:20
“particle of a larger”
“part of a larger”
326:14
“gave publicly”
“made publicly”
336:15
“collecting”
“correcting”
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 53 of 55
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 54 of 55
8/26/2022
Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
Confidential
www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2022
202-232-0646
Page 369
1
Digital Evidence Group, LLC
2
1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
3
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
(202)232-0646
5
6
ERRATA SHEET
7
8
Case: Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
9
Witness Name: Joseph Turow, Ph.D.
10
Deposition Date: August 26, 2022
11
Page No. Line No. Change
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
_
_____________
22
Signature
Date
2FWREHU
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 151-13 Filed 01/26/23 Page 55 of 55File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.151.13.pdf
- Size
- 763,787 bytes
- SHA-256
- 022cf32c0bdf28fbb4533635804eb5de9b3ef7f1ce30eb435df9a51aa4f439ec
- Original
- PACER (login required)