In 1963 the East German secret police, the Stasi, uncovered a tunnel at 45 Brunnenstrasse in Berlin, arresting several people and throwing them into prison for trying to escape an oppressive regime. Today just a few blocks south on the same street, a group called Tactical Technology Collective is developing its own methods to counter injustice and help activists use technology to fight for freedom. The geopolitical history of her immediate surroundings is not lost on executive director and co-founder Stephanie Hankey.
What is Tactical Technology Collective and how did it come about?
We started about 13 years ago. We were interested in how technology could protect activists, journalists and different groups and individuals working towards political change and protecting human rights. As well as raising awareness and educating people on the key issues, we also provide tools and services to help build practical skills, particularly in digital security and privacy.
Are you aware of the historical significance of your office location?
Yes, the history is not far away in people’s minds here. Before 1989 this was already a difficult place to live but had these technologies been available then, it would have been an extraordinarily difficult place to live. Erich Honecker [leader of the former German Democratic Republic] had this plan to have a complete record of every single person and organisation in the country and he started the process. What he didn’t have then that we have now is scale and speed. I don’t think anyone then could have imagined the depth with which these things now happen.
What do you mean by this?
Look at a company like Google, for example, and the way in which it aggregates information across different accounts and services. It has all this data. It has Nest, mobile phones and now cars. It can link the data from your home, with your mobile, with your movement, with your searches and you start to see how a company can build a complete information picture – it’s difficult to strike a balance in a discussion as people tend to say “oh this is so futuristic” – but it is happening.
Do people get it? Do they care?
People don’t on the whole understand data and the privacy implications and if they do the initial reaction is that they don’t care. So we have to educate people about data so they can at least make more informed decisions on how they use technology. It’s a very abstract topic and when you start talking about it, the way in which technology works and so on, well it’s uniquely boring, so you have to find ways to discuss it that are engaging.
How are you doing this?
Through tools and services such as Me and My Shadow [which looks at the traces we leave behind online] and Trackography [which looks at how data is used from searching across 2500 media sites worldwide] that help increase awareness but also through supporting journalists and activists with practical advice and tools.
Next year we are holding a big exhibition in Berlin on the politics of data, allowing people to explore for themselves what the questions are and making data real and less abstract. We’re also developing a mobile app which will feed back which apps are accessing contacts and location and why. Okay, you need location services for maps but a flashlight collecting location data? Okay, it’s the business model but we want to make these deals more transparent.
What are the practical tools for activists?
Security-in-a-Box is a guide to digital security that includes sending secure text messages, understanding malware, protecting sensitive documents and using social media safely. We translated it into Turkish a while back and we saw a huge demand for it after the Gezi Park protests, with people looking at how to delete their personal information online. We also help activists and campaigners with data visualisations, for example one we did last year was for the Egyptian Initiative for Human Rights looking at housing collapses in Egypt.
What impact have the Snowden leaks had on your work?
We had about 300,000 Security-in-a-Box users before Snowden and we now have 2.7m, which tells you something about how people feel about surveillance. We have a big user base in Vietnam and we saw over one period there were 20,000 people searching for how to quit Facebook. It’s just one example.
We’ve talked a lot about surveillance in the past few years, specifically about the Snowden leaks. Those conversations lift the lid on the real conversations people want to have about ownership of data and where the data actually goes, how do the companies work and use data and so on.
What would you say to people who question this, that take the line that you give up your privacy in the name of security?
Yes the common counter-argument is that we need this surveillance to protect ourselves and I think that’s absolutely true but we need to find a balance. For example, the reports about the British Government monitoring people’s position on the climate change conference is not a national security issue. It’s the over extension of the use of those surveillance powers. How can we regulate this and find a balance?
We can’t really stop data surveillance now that the tech companies have set up this model, so then you’re in a dilemma. The biggest challenge we have over the next few years, at an individual, technical and a government level is to figure out what does that balance even look like?
So what’s next?
We will keep on trying to educate people and groups and help activists. Society needs people who will question authority or will speak out on behalf of issues and different communities otherwise it doesn’t function properly. We are also keen to explore disruption technologies, to see if it’s possible to throw out a data cover to confuse algorithms. We can’t just wait for policy and politicians. It’s too slow and subject to lobbying from the large companies. We want to push back and play with the system.
This advertisement feature is brought to you by TransIP, sponsors of the Guardian Media Network’s digital entrepreneurs hub
