Court filing
Exhibit 4)(Schottlaender, Hayden) (Filed on 2/6/2023) Modified on… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 157.10)
Filed February 6, 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 | 2023-02-06 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 157-10 · 2023-02-06 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
EXHIBIT 4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 61
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 3
1
(All Counsel and Participants present via Zoom
2
videoconference.)
3
APPEARANCES:
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
4
BY: AMY ZEMAN, ESQUIRE
EZEKIEL WALD, ESQUIRE
5
ANDRE MURA, ESQUIRE
1111 Broadway - Suite 2100
6
Oakland, California 94607
510.350.9721
7
amz@classlawgroup.com
510.340.4285
8
zsw@classlawgroup.com
510.350.9717
9
amm@classlawgroup.com
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
12
PERKINS COIE LLP
BY: SUSAN FAHRINGER, ESQUIRE
13
1201 Third Avenue - Suite 4900
Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
14
206.359.8687
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
15
AND
16
PERKINS COIE LLP
BY: HAYDEN SCHOTTLAENDER, ESQUIRE
17
500 North Akard Street - Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75201-3347
18
214.965.7724
HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
19
Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
ALSO PRESENT:
HENRY MARTE, VIDEOGRAPHER/DOCUMENT TECH
22
DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 4 of 61
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 26
1
analysis in this case that is not reflected in the
2
report that's Exhibit 1?
3
A. No.
4
Q. In reaching your opinions in this case,
5
what methodology did you use?
6
A. A number of different methodologies.
7
For one thing, I drew on my 30-plus years of
8
experience studying privacy and data in various
9
media industries, interviewing executives, reading
10
tons of trade magazine and other articles and white
11
papers about privacy. And then looking into the
12
activities of CLEAR and connecting various dots to
13
address the -- the issue at hand.
14
I also should say that I've done, I
15
believe, nine national surveys that speak directly
16
to questions of Americans' attitudes toward privacy
17
and marketing, and written five, maybe six, books
18
on the subject and edited three or four.
19
Q. To recap, just to make sure I've caught
20
all of those, you drew on your experience studying
21
privacy including reading articles and trade
22
magazines and interviewing people; you looked into
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 5 of 61
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 27
1
the activities of CLEAR and connected various dots;
2
and you have experience conducting nine surveys,
3
and written various books and edited three or four.
4
Is that -- is that a high-level
5
summary? Did I miss any big categories of --
6
A. No, that's a high-level summary.
7
That's fine.
8
Q. Okay. Excellent. When you said you
9
looked into the activities of CLEAR and connecting
10
various dots, how did you go about doing that?
11
A. I read material that was provided to me
12
about CLEAR including promotional materials by
13
CLEAR. I read depositions that described some of
14
CLEAR's activities.
15
Q. When you mention, I'm going to go back
16
to that first bucket, the experience studying
17
privacy, reading articles and the like, how did you
18
select the articles that you relied -- let me back
19
up a step.
20
Can -- do any particular articles or
21
aspects of your experience studying privacy stand
22
out to you as anything you relied upon for purposes
8
Q.
Okay. Excellent. When you said you
9
looked into the activities of CLEAR and connecting
10
various dots, how did you go about doing that?
11
A.
I read material that was provided to me
12
about CLEAR including promotional materials by
13
CLEAR. I read depositions that described some of
14
CLEAR's activities.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 6 of 61
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 28
1
of your opinion?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Okay. Can you describe those?
4
A. Well, as I show in my report, there is
5
a whole history of the protection of the right to
6
control information. I talk about Alan Westin's
7
work which is seminal to the idea of controlling
8
information. And I rely on surveys that we've done
9
and others have done to back up ideas about the
10
public and its concern about the control of
11
information.
12
Q. We'll go into those in a minute.
13
Is it fair to say, just to make sure I
14
capture this, when you mention your report, is it
15
fair to say that where you rely on aspects of your
16
experience, the material that you principally
17
relied on is mentioned in the body of your report?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Where articles and books are -- not the
20
ones you wrote, but when articles and scholarly
21
articles are mentioned in the body of the report,
22
how did you go about selecting those articles to
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 7 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 8 of 61
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
22
Q.
When you say "many do," do you mean
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 9 of 61
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.
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.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 10 of 61
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.
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.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 11 of 61
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 98
1
privacy issues.
2
Q. Okay.
3
A. These -- right up my wheelhouse.
4
Q. Who were counsel for Plaintiffs in the
5
Vizio -- let's just start with the Vizio Consumer
6
Privacy Litigation case?
7
A. That was Gibbs.
8
Q. Okay. Same counsel as in this case?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. And is the same true for the Vizio,
11
Inc. versus Navigators case?
12
A. No. No. Different company. Can't
13
remember them right now.
14
Q. Okay. "Calhoun v. Google," what's that
15
case about?
16
A. That had to do with Google not being
17
clear about the way in which it used data by -- by
18
customers in its -- in certain aspects of its -- in
19
its activities where it -- where people were given
20
the clear impression, frankly, that -- that if they
21
used this particular approach, Google would not be
22
tracking them and, in fact, it was.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 12 of 61
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 99
1
Q. I see. So was it -- and what was your
2
opinion in that case?
3
A. That, in fact, the companies, the --
4
the individuals who were Plaintiffs were correct,
5
that if you looked at what Google was doing and the
6
rhetoric that it was using, it was quite obvious
7
that a normal person would -- would understand it
8
in a way that was not correct.
9
Q. And so in your opinion, did Google
10
violate those consumers' right to control their
11
information and their right to be let alone?
12
A. Right to control their information,
13
yes.
14
Q. But not their right to be let alone?
15
A. Right to be let alone is a corollary of
16
the right to control one's information. So they
17
come together.
18
Q. I see. So Google interfered -- in your
19
opinion, Google interferes -- let me back up a
20
step.
21
Has Google corrected the disclosures to
22
your knowledge?
15
A.
Right to be let alone is a corollary of
16
the right to control one's information. So they
17
come together.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 13 of 61
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 100
1
A. I have no idea.
2
Q. All right. Let's just -- let's just
3
proceed with your understanding of Google's
4
disclosures based on your work in that case --
5
A. Uh-huh.
6
Q. -- regardless of whether they've been
7
changed since.
8
Based on your work in that case, does
9
Google interfere with consumers' right to control
10
their information?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. And does Google interfere with
13
consumers' right to be let alone?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Okay. And I think you have answered
16
this, but for confirmation:
17
And both of those things cause people
18
privacy harms; correct?
19
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
20
ambiguous.
21
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
22
Q. Do you understand the question,
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 14 of 61
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 101
1
Professor Turow?
2
Do I need to ask a better one?
3
A. Well, the term "privacy harms" may be a
4
term of art that you're using that's not the same
5
one that I use.
6
Q. I see. I was trying to use the words
7
you used in the beginning of this deposition.
8
A. Uh-huh.
9
Q. So let me just back up a step and let's
10
unpack that a little bit so that I make sure we're
11
not missing each other on some definitions that
12
might matter.
13
Do you consider the right to control
14
one's information and the right to be let alone to
15
be privacy harms?
16
A. In particular contexts, yes.
17
Q. What do you mean by that?
18
A. There may be situations where you give
19
up your right to control your information like
20
under HIPPAA where you're allowing your doctors to
21
use your information. That kind of thing where
22
you're saying, okay, I'm going to -- you can use my
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 15 of 61
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 117
1
Did I read that correctly?
2
A. Yes, you did.
3
Q. And you explain this further in the
4
footnote at the bottom of that page by saying, [as
5
read]: "My opinion addresses the way scholars view
6
the right to control one's information as one
7
important aspect of privacy, and the impacts to
8
people when their right to control their
9
information is diminished."
10
Did I read that correctly?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. So your opinion addresses scholars'
13
views?
14
A. Well, I talk about it from the
15
standpoint of Socrates all the way up to Alan
16
Westin and --
17
Q. So what -- I didn't mean to cut you
18
off. Did I cut you off?
19
A. No. I said and -- and beyond.
20
Q. Okay.
21
A. Alan Westin and beyond.
22
Q. And is there any particular field of
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 16 of 61
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 118
1
scholarship you focused on?
2
A. Well, writings about privacy in a
3
variety of ways. I don't -- I think, field is a
4
difficult problem. People write about privacy in a
5
variety of fields.
6
Q. I see. So just -- I want to make sure
7
I'm interpreting this sentence correctly and I want
8
to clarify in particular: Are you addressing the
9
way scholars view the right to control one's
10
information and the way scholars view the impacts
11
to people when their right to control their
12
information is diminished?
13
A. Yes. I've read both obviously.
14
Q. Okay. And so the question was mostly:
15
Does scholars' views modify both of those things,
16
the right to control one's information and the
17
impacts to people?
18
A. Yes. Yes.
19
Q. All right. Are you rendering an
20
opinion in this case as to the views of anyone
21
other than scholars?
22
A. Yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 17 of 61
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 119
1
Q. Who?
2
A. The public.
3
Q. Ah, okay. Are you offering opinion in
4
this case regarding consumer perceptions?
5
A. Yes.
6
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
7
ambiguous.
8
THE WITNESS: People's desire not to
9
be -- the desire to have their -- to control
10
their information, yes.
11
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
12
Q. And that's as reflected in the
13
empirical survey that we've discussed previously
14
that's Exhibit 2?
15
A. Plus other work that I've done and
16
others have done.
17
Q. So is your opinion in this case
18
purporting to reflect consumer perceptions with
19
respect -- well, just consumer perceptions. And
20
then I'll ask on what topics.
21
I'm going to --
22
A. Yes.
3
Q.
Ah, okay. Are you offering opinion in
4
this case regarding consumer perceptions?
5
A.
Yes.
6
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
7
ambiguous.
8
THE WITNESS: People's desire not to
9
be -- the desire to have their -- to control
10
their information, yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 18 of 61
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 120
1
Q. Okay. So the answer is yes?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. All right. And on what topics?
4
A. On the right to control one's
5
information.
6
Q. Where does your report discuss consumer
7
perceptions of the right to control one's
8
information?
9
A. I discuss the -- tell you in just a
10
second. Look at Page 6 and look at Footnote 6 and
11
you'll see that.
12
Q. I see. Terrific.
13
So at Footnote 6 and the materials
14
cited in Footnote 6, this is where you -- this is
15
one place your report addresses consumer
16
perceptions?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. What -- is there any other place in
19
your report where you address consumer perceptions?
20
A. (Reviewing document.)
21
I think that is the dominant one.
22
The -- the pamphlet that I cite when the
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 19 of 61
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 121
1
discussions were taking place around the California
2
amendment to the Constitution one could argue are
3
enactments of -- of some consumer's interests, but
4
the -- but that footnote and the various studies I
5
cite are -- are the clear statement of my sense of
6
that, yes.
7
Q. I want to make sure we captured your
8
testimony clearly.
9
Did you testify that the footnote and
10
the various studies you cite are a clear statement
11
of your sense of consumer perceptions?
12
A. Yeah, not my sense, but a clear
13
statement of consumer sentiments regarding the
14
desire to control their information.
15
Q. Thank you.
16
And the various studies you cite, just
17
to make sure we understand what you're referring to
18
there, do -- by that do you mean to refer to the
19
studies that you cite in Footnote 6 of your report?
20
A. Footnote 6, yes.
21
Q. Okay. Anywhere else in your report?
22
A. As I mention, the -- one could argue
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 20 of 61
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 150
1
information that's available about a person in
2
CLEAR; is that fair?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Okay. And so it would include all
5
information in CLEAR without regard to whether the
6
person that the information regards has any
7
objection to that information being in CLEAR; is
8
that fair?
9
A. Again, you have to give me the
10
situation in which that would -- that would take
11
place.
12
Q. Oh, okay. So is it your testimony
13
that -- that every single person in California
14
would object to their information being available
15
in CLEAR?
16
A. I think we'd have to -- that is a
17
question -- that's not what I'm asked to -- that's
18
not what I'm talking about here. I mean you're
19
trying to bring it down to the individual level.
20
What I'm trying to say is that there are -- that
21
the very activity of CLEAR, its very existence
22
is -- is to take away the power of people to
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 21 of 61
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 151
1
control their information and as consequence it
2
is -- it is harming their privacy rights. Whether
3
there is some individual somewhere who might say
4
that, in your hypothetical world, that a particular
5
type of data is okay, is something that is a
6
question and I would frankly doubt that there are
7
people out there. But that's not what I'm asked to
8
opine about.
9
Q. That's fine. I want to just make sure
10
I've got the scope of your testimony in this case.
11
And just for clarity, I'm going to ask the question
12
again.
13
Is it your testimony in this case that
14
every person in California would object to their
15
information being in CLEAR?
16
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
17
answered.
18
THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I'm saying
19
that that's not what I asked -- that's not
20
what I'm asked to be -- opine about.
21
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
22
Q. Okay. So that's not your opinion in
9
Q.
That's fine. I want to just make sure
10
I've got the scope of your testimony in this case.
11
And just for clarity, I'm going to ask the question
12
again.
13
Is it your testimony in this case that
14
every person in California would object to their
15
information being in CLEAR?
16
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
17
answered.
18
THE WITNESS: And I'm -- I'm saying
19
that that's not what I asked -- that's not
20
what I'm asked to be -- opine about.
21
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
22
Q.
Okay. So that's not your opinion in
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 22 of 61
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 152
1
this case; correct?
2
A. It's not what I've written about.
3
Q. And your opinion is reflected in your
4
in your opinion that is --
5
A. The larger point is it's not what --
6
that point does not affect my conclusion.
7
Q. Okay. That's fine.
8
A. Whatever I say about that point does
9
not affect my conclusion.
10
Q. And, in fact, you are not offering an
11
opinion in this case with respect to actual people
12
in California, and more specifically, you're not
13
offering an opinion in this case that every person
14
in California would object to their information
15
being available in CLEAR; is that fair?
16
A. I am offering the opinion based on
17
research that the huge proportion of Americans
18
including Californians want to control the
19
information companies have about them.
20
In the case of CLEAR, people don't even
21
know of its existence. My sense is that if you
22
told people what -- what is in my report, they
1
this case; correct?
2
A.
It's not what I've written about.
3
Q.
And your opinion is reflected in your
4
in your opinion that is --
5
A.
The larger point is it's not what --
6
that point does not affect my conclusion.
20
In the case of CLEAR, people don't even
21
know of its existence. My sense is that if you
22
told people what -- what is in my report, they
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 23 of 61
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 153
1
would freak out because that -- that is what we've
2
seen in some of our surveys. So you can tell me
3
about individuals who -- who have particular
4
responses, but that's not what we find.
5
Q. Is it possible that there are people in
6
California who would not object to their
7
information being in CLEAR?
8
A. I have no idea.
9
Q. And your opinion in this case doesn't
10
offer any methodology to help you or to help the
11
Court determine who those people might be; is that
12
fair?
13
A. My opinion in this case doesn't turn on
14
that very issue at all.
15
Q. And, therefore, your opinion in this
16
case doesn't offer any methodology to help you or
17
to help the Court determine who those people might
18
be, those people who wouldn't object to their
19
information being in CLEAR; is that fair?
20
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
21
answered.
22
THE WITNESS: My sense it's an
1
would freak out because that -- that is what we've
2
seen in some of our surveys. So you can tell me
3
about individuals who -- who have particular
4
responses, but that's not what we find.
5
Q.
Is it possible that there are people in
6
California who would not object to their
7
information being in CLEAR?
8
A.
I have no idea.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 24 of 61
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 154
1
irrelevant point that clouds what the real
2
subject here is.
3
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
4
Q. And so your opinion does not address
5
that point; correct?
6
A. It doesn't address it because it's not
7
relevant to the larger issue. You're trying to
8
make up an issue that will change the larger
9
problem.
10
Q. Let's now turn to the operation of
11
CLEAR. By "operation of CLEAR," I want to examine
12
the extent to which you looked at -- I'm going to
13
identify three things. You looked at the
14
collection of information in -- in CLEAR, the --
15
well, let me back up a step.
16
Why don't you give me your best
17
description of the CLEAR platform as you understand
18
it.
19
A. Okay. The CLEAR platform, as I
20
understand it, is a technology that allows
21
companies that are given putative permission by
22
CLEAR to go in and search for particular
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 25 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 26 of 61
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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 27 of 61
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?
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 28 of 61
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.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 29 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 30 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 31 of 61
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 176
1
business of marketing audience data, but I didn't
2
specifically talk about the -- not using their --
3
you know, taking away people's rights to their
4
information, but it's quite possible.
5
Q. That that -- that that is occurring
6
too?
7
A. Yeah.
8
Q. Okay. Let's focus on these -- on the
9
privacy rights of not being able to control
10
about -- control your information and the right to
11
be let alone.
12
Does the violation of those rights
13
result in any other harm in which it's -- I'm going
14
to ask you what harm that is and we're going to
15
talk about that as well.
16
Do you understand the question?
17
A. No.
18
Q. Okay. How does the harm manifest?
19
Does it -- for example, does the harm
20
involve any physical consequences to a person?
21
A. The harm --
22
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, compound.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 32 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 33 of 61
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 188
1
CLEAR, is it -- did you say something I'm sorry?
2
A. No.
3
Q. Okay. Is it -- is it fair to say that
4
your report -- well, let me back up a step.
5
In your opinion, could different
6
individuals experience different amounts of harm
7
due to the CLEAR platform?
8
A. That is not anything that I was asked
9
to opine about or write about or do research on.
10
Q. I see. So do -- you have no opinion
11
with respect to that in this case?
12
A. I have no systematic opinion.
13
Q. Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. You
14
have no what?
15
A. I said, I have no systematic opinion.
16
I was not -- not asked to opine on the subject.
17
Q. Do you have -- do you have any basis to
18
know one way or another whether people suffer
19
different amounts of harm due to the CLEAR
20
platform?
21
A. That's, again, not the point of my
22
report and not the point of the objection to CLEAR
5
In your opinion, could different
6
individuals experience different amounts of harm
7
due to the CLEAR platform?
8
A.
That is not anything that I was asked
9
to opine about or write about or do research on.
10
Q.
I see. So do -- you have no opinion
11
with respect to that in this case?
12
A.
I have no systematic opinion.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 34 of 61
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 189
1
that I see here.
2
The problem with CLEAR is a larger
3
social, not individual problem. The problem with
4
CLEAR is that it denies Californians, huge numbers
5
of Californians, the right to control their
6
information and -- and the right to know that other
7
companies are accessing their information.
8
So that's the issue. If you want to
9
keep talking about individuals, that's fine. But
10
the judge and any jury should understand that
11
that's diverting from the actual mandate that I had
12
to discuss.
13
Q. I understand. Do you have any basis to
14
know one way or another whether people suffered
15
different amounts of harm due to the CLEAR
16
platform?
17
A. That was not part of my mandate, no.
18
Q. Okay. And so you don't have any basis
19
to opine one way or another on that subject for
20
purposes of this case?
21
A. No.
22
Q. Is it possible -- again, I'm going to
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 35 of 61
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 190
1
ask you to think about the individual level or
2
individual people in California.
3
Is it possible that some Californians
4
might feel they are benefited by CLEAR?
5
A. There's a hypothetical possibility,
6
but, again, this is not what -- that -- the benefit
7
is not what I'm talking about. It's a level of
8
benefit that's outside the purview of my -- my
9
discussion.
10
Q. I understand. Is it also possible that
11
some people in California might have no objection
12
to their information being made available in CLEAR?
13
Is that possible?
14
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, incomplete
15
hypothetical.
16
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'd have to know
17
what the context would be. You know, you can
18
make up stories about anything.
19
My -- my general sense given what we've
20
learned in our surveys is that when people
21
found about -- would find out about CLEAR,
22
they would, as I said before, freak out. The
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 36 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 37 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 38 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 39 of 61
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 210
1
A. Uh-huh.
2
Q. -- would that violate --
3
A. Yes, it's a privacy harm.
4
Q. And I'm just going to finish the
5
question for the poor court reporter who is -- who
6
is trying to make sure she gets all of our
7
testimony.
8
A. I apologize.
9
Q. If the -- if all Thomson Reuters did
10
was collect information about a person without
11
any -- without doing anything else, without sharing
12
it, without selling it, without doing anything
13
else, in your view is it correct to say that that
14
would cause the privacy harms that are at -- that
15
are the subject of your opinion in this case?
16
A. Yes. I've said that before, yeah.
17
Q. Okay. Does a person necessarily know
18
when they have lost control of their information?
19
Do you understand that question?
20
A. I believe I do and the answer is no.
21
Q. Why not?
22
A. There are many situations where people
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 40 of 61
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 211
1
simply don't realize that companies have been using
2
their -- or collecting data about them. CLEAR is
3
one of them.
4
Q. So people lose the right to control
5
their information any time a company collects data
6
about them?
7
A. They lose the right to control their
8
information when companies create -- collect data
9
about them without their knowing it, without their
10
permission, yes, without their permission.
11
Q. We covered this a little bit earlier
12
and I'm curious about it. I want to make sure I
13
understand your opinion with respect to the right
14
to be let alone.
15
Earlier, you testified that that was
16
related, I believe, to the right to control one's
17
information and I want to make sure I understand
18
what the right to be let alone actually is.
19
So -- so the question is: I know
20
you're not testifying to a legal opinion. When you
21
refer to the right to be let alone, are you
22
referring to a legal right?
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 41 of 61
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 212
1
A. No.
2
Q. Okay. Is this another example of a
3
social or ethical right?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Okay. Could you please describe that
6
right, as best you can, the right to be let alone?
7
A. Okay. It's a -- and I would say it's a
8
corollary of the right to control one's information
9
and it's the right to not be worried that companies
10
could use data to create trouble for that person or
11
to create discriminatory activities for that
12
person.
13
Q. I see. So when the right to be let
14
alone is violated, is it fair to say that what that
15
means is that you've interfered with -- that you've
16
interfered with the right not to be worried that
17
companies could use data to create trouble for you?
18
Is that correct?
19
A. That's one of the possibilities of the
20
right to be let alone.
21
Q. Okay. What are some others?
22
A. The right -- I mean, if we define
2
Q.
Okay. Is this another example of a
3
social or ethical right?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Okay. Could you please describe that
6
right, as best you can, the right to be let alone?
7
A.
Okay. It's a -- and I would say it's a
8
corollary of the right to control one's information
9
and it's the right to not be worried that companies
10
could use data to create trouble for that person or
11
to create discriminatory activities for that
12
person.
22
A.
The right -- I mean, if we define
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 42 of 61
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 213
1
trouble in the broadest sense, the right not to be
2
dinged by e-mails, the right not to be pestered by
3
text messages, the right not to be phoned by
4
spammers. I mean, there -- those are just on the
5
surface.
6
But also the right not to be chosen by
7
particular agencies for investigation because of
8
certain information that got out that might not
9
even be accurate and that CLEAR makes no pretension
10
to accuracy.
11
Q. So the right to be let alone is the
12
right not to be -- the right to not be selected --
13
let me see if I can't capture that last point you
14
made.
15
Is the right to be let alone the right
16
to not be investigated?
17
A. No, it's the right not to be -- it's
18
the -- it's the right not to be selected in ways
19
that might cause you harm or difficulty or
20
discrimination.
21
Q. So what about a criminal, does a
22
criminal have a right to be -- a right not to be
1
trouble in the broadest sense, the right not to be
2
dinged by e-mails, the right not to be pestered by
3
text messages, the right not to be phoned by
4
spammers. I mean, there -- those are just on the
5
surface.
6
But also the right not to be chosen by
7
particular agencies for investigation because of
8
certain information that got out that might not
9
even be accurate and that CLEAR makes no pretension
10
to accuracy.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 43 of 61
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 214
1
selected in ways that might cause him harm?
2
A. Former criminal?
3
Q. Current criminal.
4
A. I don't -- could you explain how this
5
relates at all to what we're talking about?
6
Q. No. I'm going to just continue to ask
7
my questions because, you know, your attorney is
8
going to have plenty of time at the end of this
9
deposition to ask you as many questions as you want
10
to be asked.
11
A. I can't understand the point you're
12
making.
13
Q. I -- the goal here is to just make sure
14
you understand the question.
15
A. Yeah, I don't.
16
Q. Okay. Great. So the -- you describe
17
the right to be let alone as a right not to be
18
selected in ways that might cause you harm or
19
difficulty or discrimination; correct?
20
A. Right.
21
Q. And does everybody have this right?
22
A. We're talking about -- again, fall
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 44 of 61
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 215
1
back. You're not contextualizing this.
2
We're talking about the right to be let
3
alone within a marketing context of the marketing
4
of people's information in the larger social scheme
5
of things. Don't -- and that has to be taken into
6
account.
7
We're talking about a company like
8
CLEAR who is selling information which may, in
9
fact, affect how people are -- are talked to, how
10
people are reached out to, even their futures.
11
And -- and the company doesn't even warrant the
12
accuracy of its data. So that's the context that
13
we're discussing this stuff in, not some
14
hypothetical notion of being bothered. It's a
15
marketing context of a particular type of company.
16
Q. So this right not to be selected in
17
ways that might cause you harm or difficulty, does
18
everybody have this right?
19
A. Within a marketing context, yes.
20
Q. Under all circumstances?
21
A. I don't know what all circumstances
22
means.
2
We're talking about the right to be let
3
alone within a marketing context of the marketing
4
of people's information in the larger social scheme
5
of things. Don't -- and that has to be taken into
6
account.
16
Q.
So this right not to be selected in
17
ways that might cause you harm or difficulty, does
18
everybody have this right?
19
A.
Within a marketing context, yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 45 of 61
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 295
1
Q. Do you -- are you aware of any other
2
restrictions on the ways in which CLEAR may be
3
used?
4
A. Well, it can't be used by a foreign
5
country.
6
Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other
7
restrictions on the ways in which CLEAR can be
8
used?
9
A. Right now, I can't think of one.
10
Q. Are you aware whether CLEAR is used for
11
purposes of marketing or advertising?
12
A. It cannot be used for that. I thought
13
I said that earlier.
14
Q. Okay. So the use of CLEAR for
15
marketing or solicitation is prohibited?
16
A. Yes, by CLEAR.
17
Q. Okay. Do you think those restrictions
18
have any value in providing a benefit to any
19
California residents?
20
A. Well, I think it takes some data out of
21
circulation for that sense, but, again, it doesn't
22
take away from the larger harm.
10
Q.
Are you aware whether CLEAR is used for
11
purposes of marketing or advertising?
12
A.
It cannot be used for that. I thought
13
I said that earlier.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 46 of 61
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 296
1
Q. So as to the data it takes out of
2
circulation, do you think that -- that those
3
restrictions have some value in providing a benefit
4
to California residents?
5
A. Some.
6
Q. Okay. Do you think the restrictions on
7
use -- ways in which CLEAR can be used have any
8
value in reducing any privacy harms as you discuss
9
them in your report in this case in reducing those
10
harms from CLEAR?
11
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, vague and
12
ambiguous.
13
THE WITNESS: Yeah. Could you discuss
14
a little more what you want?
15
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
16
Q. Yeah. The restrictions that we're
17
discussing, the restrictions on the use of clear,
18
do you think they have any value in reducing the
19
harm from CLEAR?
20
A. My report was not to quantify
21
particular aspects of CLEAR harm so I really don't
22
want to speak to that aspect of it.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 47 of 61
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 297
1
Q. Okay. So you don't have an opinion one
2
way or another as to whether those restrictions
3
reduce harm from CLEAR?
4
A. No.
5
MS. ZEMAN: Objection, asked and
6
answered.
7
BY MS. FAHRINGER:
8
Q. Okay. You also state in your report
9
that you have seen no evidence that Thomson Reuters
10
investigates this a customer's use is, in fact,
11
permissible; is that right?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. What did you mean by that?
14
A. That at the front end when the customer
15
has been given permission to -- to use the
16
platform, there's -- there's no evidence that I saw
17
that the company does investigations as to whether
18
there's a genuine, acceptable reason for doing what
19
the company is looking at.
20
Q. And why is that important, whether or
21
not the company investigates instances of potential
22
impermissible uses of CLEAR?
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 48 of 61
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 325
1
information is the privacy harm.
2
Q. Even if the information is publicly
3
available; correct?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. And even if she herself made it
6
publicly available; correct?
7
A. I don't know what you mean by that.
8
Q. So some of the information in this
9
report is information that Ms. Brooks made publicly
10
available herself; correct?
11
A. In terms of the news media, is that
12
what you mean?
13
Q. Well, anything in the report. Isn't
14
some of the information in the CLEAR report
15
information that Ms. Brooks made available --
16
publicly available herself?
17
A. But not to CLEAR.
18
Q. I understand. We'll let's just focus
19
on publicly available.
20
Is it fair to say that some of the
21
information in the CLEAR report is information that
22
Ms. Brooks herself made publicly available?
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 49 of 61
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 326
1
A. Could you give me an example?
2
Q. Well, let's talk broadly right now.
3
If you're going -- if you -- if you
4
don't think that's true, that's fine, go ahead and
5
say so, or whether you just don't know.
6
A. Could you give me an example?
7
Q. Information that -- that Ms. Brooks
8
made publicly available would be, for example, an
9
article she wrote in a newspaper.
10
A. That would be a -- her -- yes, publicly
11
available. Is that an example here?
12
Q. Yeah.
13
A. So that would be something that she
14
gave publicly available, yeah.
15
Q. Understood. And so the question is:
16
Is it fair to say that some of the information in
17
the CLEAR report is information that Ms. Brooks
18
herself made publicly available?
19
A. Okay. And?
20
Q. And is it your conclusion that that
21
information -- the presence of that information in
22
this CLEAR report causes her a privacy harm?
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 50 of 61
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 327
1
A. The privacy harm is the collection of
2
that information by CLEAR with -- you know, without
3
giving control to Ms. Brooks.
4
Q. And that privacy harm exists regardless
5
of who sees that information; correct?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. And regardless of who uses that
8
information; correct?
9
A. Yes.
10
In the case of -- in the case of CLEAR
11
having it, yes.
12
Q. And the privacy harm exists regardless
13
of what the information is used for; correct?
14
A. By CLEAR, yes.
15
Q. All right. And this privacy harm that
16
you're testifying to exists even regardless of
17
whether Ms. Brooks consented to the search itself
18
that was conducted for her information; is that
19
true?
20
A. We have no evidence one way or the
21
other about that, and I -- from everything I've
22
read Ms. Brooks did not consent to the search.
1
A.
The privacy harm is the collection of
2
that information by CLEAR with -- you know, without
3
giving control to Ms. Brooks.
4
Q.
And that privacy harm exists regardless
5
of who sees that information; correct?
6
A.
Yes.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 51 of 61
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 328
1
Q. Oh, really? I thought --
2
A. Well, I take that back. No. No.
3
You're right. She did consent.
4
Q. Okay.
5
A. But in normal cases people would not.
6
The -- the very holding -- you're
7
right, the very holding of information by CLEAR is
8
the problem here without --
9
Q. And --
10
A. -- without giving people control over
11
that.
12
Q. And the privacy harm resulting from the
13
CLEAR platform to -- the privacy harm to Ms. Brooks
14
resulting from the CLEAR platform exists regardless
15
of whether she consented to the search that was
16
conducted, I take it?
17
Is that -- is that your testimony?
18
A. Yes. Yes.
19
Q. All right. You conclude in your report
20
that discovery demonstrates that Thomson Reuters is
21
disinterested in helping members of the public
22
learn about the data that Thomson Reuters amasses
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 52 of 61
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 334
1
should say on -- on its website or app, have an
2
opt out, essentially, button, where you can opt out
3
of all information the company collects.
4
Q. Do you have any opinion in this case as
5
to whether Thomson Reuters' processes for opting
6
out of the sale of information under the CCPA is
7
sufficient?
8
A. My -- I went to the website. I don't
9
remember that button being there. If it is, I
10
don't remember it. I -- the -- the fact of a
11
person even knowing, however, that Thomson Reuters
12
exists in order to get to that place is
13
infinitesimal. So that's part of the issue as --
14
as Mr. Godlewski pointed out.
15
Q. So -- well, Mr. Godlewski didn't
16
actually say that in his deposition, did he?
17
A. Well, he came close to it.
18
Q. How so?
19
A. Well, he said that he -- he doesn't
20
know that any marketing materials are -- are
21
presented to the public about -- about Thomson
22
Reuters.
8
A.
My -- I went to the website. I don't
9
remember that button being there. If it is, I
10
don't remember it. I -- the -- the fact of a
11
person even knowing, however, that Thomson Reuters
12
exists in order to get to that place is
13
infinitesimal. So that's part of the issue as --
14
as Mr. Godlewski pointed out.
15
Q.
So -- well, Mr. Godlewski didn't
16
actually say that in his deposition, did he?
17
A.
Well, he came close to it.
18
Q.
How so?
19
A.
Well, he said that he -- he doesn't
20
know that any marketing materials are -- are
21
presented to the public about -- about Thomson
22
Reuters.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 53 of 61
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 335
1
Q. Did he really?
2
A. Isn't that what we just talked about?
3
Q. That marketing materials aren't
4
presented to the public?
5
A. To members of -- marketing materials
6
are not presented to members of the public. The --
7
the -- the -- the public of Californians have no
8
reason to know that Thomson Reuters exists.
9
Q. Are you offering -- let's go back to
10
your opinion in this case just to make sure I
11
understand it 'cause I'll have a number of
12
follow-up questions --
13
A. Uh-huh.
14
Q. -- if my assumption is wrong.
15
Are you offering an opinion in this
16
case -- let me back up a step.
17
You testified that you're not offering
18
a legal opinion in this case; correct?
19
A. Right.
20
Q. Are you offering an opinion in this
21
case regarding the sufficiency of the Thomson
22
Reuters processes for opting out of the sale of
1
Q.
Did he really?
2
A.
Isn't that what we just talked about?
3
Q.
That marketing materials aren't
4
presented to the public?
5
A.
To members of -- marketing materials
6
are not presented to members of the public. The --
7
the -- the -- the public of Californians have no
8
reason to know that Thomson Reuters exists.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 54 of 61
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 336
1
information under the California Consumer Privacy
2
Act?
3
A. No, we talked about it says, "In fact,
4
discovery demonstrates that Thomson Reuters is
5
disinterested in helping members of the public
6
learn about the data Thomson Reuters amasses about
7
them, who uses it, and whether and how they can
8
stop it."
9
That's what I was referring to.
10
Q. Okay. So you're not offering an
11
opinion in this case with respect to Thomson
12
Reuters' processes for correcting information in
13
CLEAR?
14
A. As I understand the processes for
15
collecting information in CLEAR, they are very
16
difficult.
17
Q. All right. And are -- is it your
18
opinion that those processes are insufficient under
19
the law?
20
A. They may be sufficient under the law,
21
but they are extremely difficult, and as are, by
22
the way, attempts to get the information out of --
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 55 of 61
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 337
1
of CLEAR.
2
Q. Are you aware that both Plaintiffs in
3
this case were, in fact, aware of the Thomson
4
Reuters opt out process?
5
A. I wouldn't be surprised, but they're
6
unusual Plaintiffs in that sense.
7
Q. And are you aware that the Plaintiffs
8
in this case actually initiated the process of
9
opting out in -- via the Thomson Reuters website?
10
A. I think I remember that.
11
Q. When you say they're unusual Plaintiffs
12
in that sense, what is it that you're referring to?
13
A. Most Californians would have no idea
14
that Thomson Reuters CLEAR exists.
15
Q. You testified -- your report -- well,
16
actually, I'm going to go into just a couple of
17
different sections in your report.
18
MS. FAHRINGER: And we've gone, I
19
think, for about an hour. Why don't we take
20
another ten-minute break and reconvene maybe
21
at the bottom of the hour.
22
Would that be acceptable, Ms. --
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 56 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 57 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 58 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 59 of 61
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 60 of 61
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 157-10 Filed 02/06/23 Page 61 of 61File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.157.10.pdf
- Size
- 767,924 bytes
- SHA-256
- 421d106949be1753b5b5b7ab33bb3b63390ee3469687b7ab5d4774e636fca37b
- Original
- PACER (login required)