35:08

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

people, data, technology, privacy, law, legal, state, predictions, happening, thought, necessarily, big, cloud, talking, IRS, privacy laws, firms, cases, years, transparency

SPEAKERS

Debbie Reynolds, Zach Warren

 

Debbie Reynolds  00:00

Personal views and opinions expressed by our podcast guests are their own and are not legal advice or official statements by their organizations. Hello, my name is Debbie Reynolds; they call me "The Data Diva". This is "The Data Diva Talks" Privacy podcast, where we discuss Data Privacy issues with industry leaders around the world for the information that business needs to know now. I have a special guest on the show. Zach Warren is the editor-in-chief of Legaltech News from Minneapolis. Hello, Zach.

 

Zach Warren  00:38

Hey, there. Thank you for having me. I  appreciate it.

 

Debbie Reynolds  00:40

Yeah, this is so cool that we're able to do this. So I've known you for many, many years, longer than you even know me. And that's been a long time, right?

 

Zach Warren  00:51

Hopefully, in a good way.

 

Debbie Reynolds  00:52

Yeah, in a good way. So because my work kind of straddles the Legaltech stuff, I've been a fan of your publication for well over 20 years. And I like a lot of your commentary and stuff that you're doing with the organization. I've seen it grow over the years. I've been quoted in Legaltech News for years on a myriad of topics. And it's cool for us to have you on the show. 

 

01:05

 Well, thank you. And I mean, likewise, we've gotten to talk at Legaltech, and all these conferences and stuff, but especially something like this, we haven't been able to see each other in person in more than a year at this point. Thank you. COVID. So having an opportunity to chat, I'm very happy to do so.

 

Debbie Reynolds  01:42

Yeah, I thought this would be fun. I'm  excited. Well, why don't you tell us a bit about yourself? I think you have a  interesting journey into what you're doing. So being kind of a journalist and something like a content creator, before that was even a word and doing news and stuff, you see a lot of stuff. And then, kind of straddling that Legaltech space, you're seeing a lot of kind of wacky things are happening with data. And I've read, I read a  good piece that you did a few weeks ago about Data Privacy; I think it was from people's predictions or something. And they were pretty cool. I thought but give us a bit of your background and how you get into Canada straddling this legal and tech space.

 

Zach Warren  02:29

Yeah, definitely. So as you kind of alluded to, I mean, I feel like a lot of people come into this from either a hard tech background or hard legal background, but I'm not either. I went to school for journalism, went to Northwestern loved it there. And from there, I mean, I wasn't  looking for anything in the legal sphere. Specifically, I was just kind of looking around seeing what journalism jobs are out there. And a friend of mine worked for a magazine called Inside Counsel and said, hey, you're looking for something I know, you don't know many legal things. But go ahead and give this a try and see how you like it. So I popped over to Inside Counsel magazine, and I was like, oh, this is actually pretty cool. I'm talking with people who are highly intelligent, highly motivated, and are interested in kind of moving the profession forward and trying to do something a little bit different. But Inside Counsel, I was there for two years, and I enjoyed it. But one thing that I  noticed is it was interesting to me, but it didn't grab hold of what I  know and am good at. So I was at Inside Counsel for about two years, but then I realized it didn't play to my strengths, necessarily, because I did like the tech space. And I feel like I was kind of coming at things from more of a business tech angle, even if I was writing about law. So there was an opportunity when ALM bought inside counsel to move over to Legaltech news under an editor that I knew Aaron Harrison, and I'm like, yeah, sure, I'll give this thing a try. And that's where I feel like I  found my niche. I was talking with people who not only were highly intelligent, highly motivated, wanted to change things, but we're doing so in an innovative and thoughtful manner and using technology and thinking about technology in a  cool way. So that was back in 2015. I became Editor In Chief in 2016 and have been doing that for coming up on six years now. It's been an interesting journey. And I think even within those six years, not only has the technology that lawyers use changed but how the legal profession approaches technology with regards to privacy with regards to data has changed a lot over that time frame as well, which as well as anybody.

 

Debbie Reynolds  04:51

Yeah, it has changed a lot. It has changed a lot; I think one thing that you've done well is that you branched out and brought in a lot of different voices. So a lot of those, some of the publications, many years ago, like Lawyer Focus or just, obviously that's kind of the audience. But there are so many people that are in the legal stratosphere, right? People in the legal orbit that aren't necessarily lawyers are not necessarily law firms, are not less necessarily, partner track, or what, they're doing different things, and legal, and I feel like you've been able to kind of capture all that.

 

Zach Warren  05:39

Yeah, I appreciate that. I mean, that's something I've actively tried to do. And I feel like at times, where Legaltech news sits as part of a larger ALM and Law.com organization can be both a little bit of a blessing and a curse. Because at times, there's always a little bit of pressure of you're part of the American Lawyer, you need to focus on the AM LAW 100 and what the biggest firms are doing and talk to all of these partners, which is great when we are able to get their insight about what's new and interesting. But kind of the flip side of that is, one thing that I  want to do is take exactly what you just talked about the voices of the technologists, the voices, the legal librarians, and take it to that American Lawyer Law.com audience and say, hey, there's a lot of smart people out there who are trying to do something different and thinking about things in a different way. You should take what they have to say into consideration. Because if not, you may be left behind by somebody smarter than you who does exactly that. So I'm happy to hear you say that. And so that's something I think we're going to continue to try to do is branch out and get as many voices smart voices in the room as possible.

 

Debbie Reynolds  06:50

Yeah, that's cool. So yeah, your evil plan is working well. I like to think so. I think there's been a huge shift. So legal, as, has been very conservative forever, very slow to change, very slow to adopt the technology. And so are your kind of that sort of leading voice for people who are looking to dip their toe into innovation, whether it be lowercase I or uppercase L, as it relates to the legal space. But then also, I think something interesting is happening over the last few years, probably even since you've been Editor In Chief for Legaltech News is that sort of,  the cloud, right, where firms maybe were more provincial in some way. So more like let's keep stuff on-premise, let's not network, certain things. So, obviously, we saw a lot of the leading firms with a lot of money. We're already doing a kind of centralization and all these kinds of different data projects to move forward. And what the cloud did was help even the playing field. So for law firms, attorneys, or legal groups that didn't necessarily want to make those upfront capital investments. Now, the cloud helped them that way. And then COVID happened. So whoever was left behind, whoever didn't want to, go to the cloud, for whatever reason, like, there were no more excuses, like, you either go into the cloud, or you don't do business. So what are your thoughts about that transition?

 

Zach Warren  08:36

 It's 100%. True. And I mean, I'm thinking back to even four or five years ago, which doesn't seem that long, but on the timespan of technology can be, I go to something like an ABA Tech Show, which tends to have more solo, small, firm attorneys. They say, oh, yeah, that's great, maybe that's something we'll look into in the future. But, what I'm focused on is just making sure my practice runs; if I'm going to adopt technology, it's going to be maybe practice management or document management, something like that. And when I'm focused on that, I'm focused on what I can have on my computer, that whole cloud thing. Yeah, it's not that they're dismissing it, but it's just going to be down the road a little bit. But you're exactly right. Not only did the pandemic obviously, kind of force people that way. But I think the accessibility of the technology kind of forced people that way as well. I mean, you think about our daily lives, and how much of our lives live on the cloud, how much you're doing things to your phones, you expect everything and either your Google Cloud or Apple, what have you to be connected. And I think a lot of people in law realize, wait, if I'm having that in my personal life, is it out there for my practice, too, so it just kind of became not necessarily second nature, but a little bit more comfortable for people to adopt. And part of the societal shift that we saw reflected in my comment with people.

 

Debbie Reynolds  10:02

Yeah, that's cool. That's definitely cool. Also, I think there's another shift that's probably been happening for over 20 years, and I love your thoughts on this. So, before you and I met, I knew goo gobs of lawyers for over 25 years. And, in the past, they used to be like, okay,  I went to this great, this Ivory school. I got into this great firm, and I'm a partner and king of the world and all this stuff. And it's like, technology. Yeah, I have the smarts I could do this job, right? Or this, this is my profession, and then technology, maybe it can help me do some shortcuts or help accelerate something that I'm doing. And then now sort of like, you can't do your job without technology. So it's not just like, oh, it's a value add? It's like, you cannot do your job, and that's what I think that message needs to go across any industry? , we're in it. , we're, we're both feet into technology. Right now. You just have to respect it in that way. What are your thoughts?

 

Zach Warren  11:20

Yeah, I mean, you're "The Data Diva,"  the value of data as well as anybody. But I think a lot of lawyers didn't necessarily get that value. And I think, ultimately, like a lot of things in the business world, these days, it comes down to dollars and cents. And a lot of lawyers didn't realize that, hey, getting a hold of this data using technology. It's not just that it's nice, and its something that my clients would like; no, this translates to do operating your business better point blank period, you are going to see ROI by embracing technology by getting a hold of this data by using this data in a smart way. And I think to your point, the longer that this technological revolution, software explodes AI, what have you, people start to realize, oh, wait, there's a little more there than maybe I  thought in the beginning. So yeah, I think it's not only a necessity for people, but people are starting to realize, oh, wait, this has a tangible effect in my practice here if I don't do it,

 

Debbie Reynolds  12:33

Right, exactly. And, a number of years ago, I love the fact you guys cover the legal and tech implications of certain cases that come up. And so a number of years ago, you had already started talking about what's happening in the EU, even before, GDPR, and stuff like that. These cases coming up, they have kind of these legal technical aspects that people need to think about, and it's only just continuing right with sort of AI and Internet of Things. I feel like these things; we've kind of broken out into kind of the wide-open space as opposed to being kind of like a segment and technology and law.

 

Zach Warren  13:19

Yeah, it's so interesting to me when that pops up to when something we've been talking about for years. Like, what happens if your Amazon? Yeah, what happens if your Alexa records something that you need to get out for discovery? Or, hey, there's Snapchat data that's going to be a part of this litigation? What the heck do I do with that? I mean, it's always fun when we have those sorts of stories, something that we have been talking about in hypotheticals for years, but it just becomes practical all of a sudden, like, oh, okay, so what are the lawyers going to do? And that's why I like being in the space that we're in and reporting on the stuff we do at LTN. Because we're talking with a lot of the lawyers that are taking these cases, that, hey, there's no precedent for this. But we've thought about this problem. We've thought through the implications; we've seen places where there might be something somewhat similar. And we're just going to go ahead and forge new case law on this. I  like that aspect of the reporting. And it's not something that I think you get not only elsewhere in journalism but even in the legal sphere. Just new stuff. It's exciting. It's cool. I like it.

 

Debbie Reynolds  14:38

Yeah, that is cool, and you do a  good job at it. What's happening in technology now that is concerning you this kind of in the future ahead you're thinking wow, this is going to be crazy if this ever happens.

 

Zach Warren  14:54

Like are you talking about a new piece of software or regulation?

 

Debbie Reynolds  14:58

Either one, it doesn't matter. Yeah.

 

Zach Warren  15:01

I'll go a little column, a little column B. I mean, as well as anybody, the privacy laws popping up, especially in the US different state laws, you got California, Virginia, Colorado, but I'm looking in 2022. For those other states, I expect there to be a few of them. New York is the one that we have our eye on, there was another bill introduced in early January, and we'll see where that goes. But especially if some of the big states hop on board with personal privacy laws, I think you definitely can see a tipping point where it just kind of becomes like data breach notification, and every state kind of has its own thing. Yeah, I don't know. Yet something there.

 

Debbie Reynolds  15:49

I think you're right. I mean, there are enough examples, right? on a state level, what's happening with these state laws, and they're kind of like stair steps, right. So some are bigger, grander than others. And we see, these states kind of borrow from one another in terms of kind of language, I guess, the one thing that concerned me about the state laws, obviously, is creating more complication, especially because not every state is going to, for example, describe personal data or sensitive data the same way. And then, in some ways, I feel like the states, we're trying to be more bespoke because they don't want to, they don't want to be like, oh, we copy California or whatever, like, we're Washington, we're going to do this new thing. What are your thoughts about that?

 

Zach Warren  16:34

That's a good point and not something I've given too much thought to, but you're 100% correct. Just kind of the human element of all this of, we're going to, Louisiana. So we're going to have a Louisiana spin on this privacy law. And it does make it more complicated. I mean, I brought up data breach notification, where it's become a thing where some states you have 30 days others you have 60 days to notify, and are you going to do it by mail? Can you do it by email? How are you managing all of this data? And what are you doing to work with the government? I foresee a potential future where it's the same thing with privacy of, okay, well, you're holding all of this data. And yeah, it kind of to your point. What are you going to do about requests to take down that data? How long do you have to comply? Whom do you have to notify? There are so many different little variables to this that you can pick apart where not it's going to be a headache for privacy attorneys. Still, kind of in a perverse sense, it also provides an opportunity for privacy attorneys because they're going to be more needed than ever here very, very shortly, to try and parse through all this stuff because there's going to be so much out there.

 

Debbie Reynolds  17:53

Yeah, totally, totally. Well, I mentioned a piece you published a few weeks ago about privacy predictions. You're good at predicting stuff. So we've been on panels together. And people ask us about the outlook. And you're very big tent in terms of the outlook. So I love the way that you kind of think out of the box there. What, were there anything in those predictions that's kind of surprised you where you thought. I haven't thought about that.

 

Zach Warren  18:22

I mean, there's a lot of interesting stuff in there. And thank you for I'm glad you were able to read it, because I like those predictions, articles too. And I know a lot of people do kind of set the stage for 2022. One that caught my eye that I think is interesting and kind of a tangent to the state laws we're just talking about is biometric data, and what's going to be happening with all that; I mean, the Illinois BIPA has been in place for a few years now. There's a big Six Flags case off of it. But we didn't see much movement elsewhere about how exactly to handle this biometric data. Well, now you're starting to see New York stuff coming out there. And I think that's going to kind of be the next frontier, particularly because it's one thing for maybe your address or even social security data to be out there. But fingerprints, retina scans, biometric data that is much easier to store and actually get these days just because of technology. I think it kind of in the general public. People take a look at that and say, oh, man, that's so personal. And I don't know necessarily, that I want people having that data or the ability to store that data. So the recognition that it can be stored. I think we'll probably get a visceral reaction out of people more so in the coming years, as there's general public awareness that it's out there.

 

Debbie Reynolds  19:58

That's definitely true, mainly because there isn't any good legal recourse for that? So if someone, let's say someone breached your biometrics like, do you get free credit reporting for a year or something?

 

Zach Warren  20:13

A free thumbprint change showing that you're safe doesn't exactly work that way.

 

Debbie Reynolds  20:20

Well, to bring this up, it's a topical thing. I'm sure you guys are covering that the IRS now wants to do facial recognition, to try to tap down on fraud and stuff. So people have online accounts and do stuff on the IRS website; you may have to send in a utility bill. , do facial recognition; maybe you do like a video interview with people. So I mean, that's big brother.

 

Zach Warren  20:52

Yes, it is.

 

Debbie Reynolds  20:53

Yeah. So what are your thoughts about that?

 

Zach Warren  20:55

I mean, it's interesting, right? It's just the privacy of it all; it makes me think, too, because, throughout the pandemic, my brother-in-law has been living in China. And he would talk to us about like, oh, they were under lockdown before we were. So he's like, yeah, I mean, it's interesting, where people come and deliver us food and stuff like that. But they also had a state-run app, which would essentially scan your face make sure you're you then have an authenticated, yes, ultimately, yes, I've been vaccinated. And that's how you go into the grocery store, and you have to show it; that's how you get into bars. And on the one hand, it's very easy and convenient. Like they were out of lockdown before we were just because they had that state-run system to authenticate people. But on the flip side, man, that's a lot of data to be having out there to not only have all of your medical data in one place but also have the face scan, have everything right on your phone. And what happens is that for each one when its has been taken well, sorry. So it's a fine line that I think we're going to be running here in the very near future between convenience and personal privacy. And the journalist in me, the fourth estate, doesn't necessarily want to pontificate where I stand on that line, but other than to say that, I think there's going to be a lot of debate about it. I mean, moving forward, particularly as stuff like the IRS and the government gets involved. Oh, yeah. Ears definitely perked up at that.

 

Debbie Reynolds  22:42

Definitely, that's definitely going to be the mood for a while. , I think people, I think the conventional wisdom, a while back was that people in the US don't care about privacy. And I think Apple kind of disproved that. So we'll allow their privacy-enhancing things. , I don't think it's a coincidence. They have some of their biggest, profitable quarters; we'll say they release that because I think consumers are looking for help in those areas, right? We need all the help that we can get, and, so much technology, so much data buzzing around, and then people aren't  sure what happens to their data. So giving people kind of a sense of agency, or control, if they will, that's one reason why I think this IRS thing they're doing is going to get a lot of attention.

 

Zach Warren  23:36

Yeah. And there's something you said there that got me thinking is just the awareness, awareness of what exactly is happening with your data. And the fact that a lot of people simply don't know, it's not that they necessarily disapprove of it. It's just that they don't know what's happening and where it is. So it, a part of the interest for me is going to be not even just like push back against some of these actions and people who don't want their data and XYZ. But just what happens when people are aware that this exists, because I think we're kind of on the front lines and are a lot more aware as people who are working in privacy as people who are working in law than maybe the general public. But as the general public starts to think about these questions a little more. I don't even know necessarily that they're not going to be okay with it.  I'm just very curious as to what the reaction is going to be because I think it could go any number of ways.

 

Debbie Reynolds  24:48

Oh, yeah, there isn't enough transparency there, and we see a lot of laws and regulations. Almost all of them have a kind of transparency factor in them. So I think that even if it's still 80 pages of documentation, there's going to be someone, somewhere, to read that 80 pages. And because we saw that with WhatsApp, so WhatsApp had a Data Privacy policy change. And normally, no one says anything about it, but it was like a big hubbub about it. Because someone wrote an article in a row, something like, hey, did you see this, and people were kind of upset. And a lot of people decided to go to other apps, so to me is all about agency and choice. So once, here's what is happening, if you don't like it, you can go to another provider or something like that. So I think that I'm hoping over the next few years, we get to a place of transparency, where people can have some I don't know, we'll get completely in the US to a place of informed consent because I feel like we just do the consent and not be the informed part. But maybe we'll get there.

 

Zach Warren  26:02

Yeah. And I mean, think back to my predictions to another one of those dealt with children's privacy. And have you seen how much data TikTok stores and their algorithms and what they know about you? I think as stuff like that becomes more well known as well, not only for personal, but I personally don't have kids, but it's probably coming in the future. And it worries me a bit what my future 6, 7, 8 year old is watching on YouTube, TikTok, and just all of that data being collected. I think that could even have more of a reaction than even personal data.

 

Debbie Reynolds  26:41

Oh, totally. Right. Because you don't know. And that goes back to transparency. You don't know what first of all, you don't know who's collecting the data, and you don't know who's sharing the data. That's one thing that, especially laws, like the CCPA in California, was trying to capture, which is third-party data sharing or data selling or something. So we aim to try to create some type of consent mechanism or transparency around it. So people at least have some idea. Right now. It's just kind of a free-for-all, especially with like data brokers and fate; we just have no idea.

 

Zach Warren  27:18

And I think that's ultimately going to be the good that comes out of this. Is it the Wild West? Part of the thing is that it's tough. Like even if you have a patchwork of state laws, as we talked about earlier. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to try and comply with everything and make sure everything is in order. But ultimately, at least for the people, I feel like it's better to have some sort of guardrails there, even if they're guardrails with jagged edges, than to just have nothing, and you can go wildly off course.

 

Debbie Reynolds  28:00

Yeah, that's true. That's true. That's a good point. Yeah, we have some gaps. We actually in the US, we have pretty strong laws around children. So I think, though, that's probably our strongest, most comprehensive Federal law around children's rights to kids everywhere. So being able to handle their privacy, I think, is a big issue. It was a big challenge because we're seeing a lot of tech companies try to move just, gently into that space, or, maybe get their hand slapped by the FTC, they run afoul of kind of those child privacy laws, especially with technology. Yeah. So if it were the world, according to Zack, and we did everything that you said, what would  be your wish for privacy, whether it be law, technology regulation, or human behavior,

 

Zach Warren  28:57

A dangerous place, I don't do you necessarily want to be in the world, according to Zach? Yeah, of course. That's a tough question now. Because I feel like everybody kind of comes at this from a different angle, where I, my hope, more than anything, is that people's data can be as private as they want it to be, which seems very general. And it's very tough to ascribe some sort of regulation or law or guideline around that. Because everybody is kind of like what you said, I mean, the US has different thoughts about privacy, maybe than the EU, than Asia does. And then with it within subsets. I mean, I'm up here in Minnesota. There are a lot of people in rural Minnesota who don't talk to too many people, just kind of live insular. I mean, I'm up here in Minnesota, and I think there's going to be some people out in rural Minnesota who probably have a different idea what privacy means than somebody living in downtown Manhattan? I mean, so I don't know necessarily that I have a distinct answer to your question. Other than I wish there were some sort of mechanism or way that everybody can be as comfortable with the amount of their data that's out there than others. But I feel ultimately, that's probably a little bit of a pipe dream, unfortunately. So it's just a matter of helping as many people as we can feel that their data is as secure and private as possible.

 

Debbie Reynolds  30:41

That's a great one. I love that I asked that question. All my guests and no one answers it the same way. So that's cool.

 

Zach Warren  30:48

I like that question, too makes you think that's something I thought too much about, quite honestly.

 

Debbie Reynolds  30:54

I don't think Warren Buffett has privacy problems. Thinking maybe he has different things that he's thinking about. But no, I think it's something that impacts humans, right? Impacts everyone. So everyone has kind of a stake in it. And that's one of the great reasons why I thought you'd be a great person to talk to because you're seeing this, you're seeing the law, the regulation, you're seeing the wacky technologies and stuff. And they are the convergence. That's definitely happening. It's like that, to me, the technology is going, the technology always outpaces the law, right. Just have to because laws lot thinking backward in terms of precedent, and as you said, you're looking at people and legal cases that they don't have any precedent for, so it's kind of a wild west in that way. But I feel like technology is accelerating to the point where instead of it being years ahead of laws, it's going to be light years ahead. What are your thoughts?

 

Zach Warren  31:56

Oh, 100%. I mean, we're seeing especially cases right now, like I edited an article earlier today that talked about cryptocurrency and divorce, like, how the heck do you manage that? Because I mean, you could hypothetically just split it down the middle. But then there's a question of who holds the key and cryptocurrencies unregulated. So what if you pay out to one person, but then it doubles by the time you payout to the other person? There are so many of these questions that just keep popping up. And yeah, to your point, the pace of law is kind of on a straight line, where it will increase, and it will adapt eventually. But it's kind of inherently because of the way cases move, designed to adapt in a straight line. Technology isn't going in a straight line technology; its exponential technology is going quickly. So as that gap continues to get wider. How exactly court systems will keep up is definitely a big question that, frankly, I don't think anybody has a  good answer for right now.

 

Debbie Reynolds  33:07

Yeah, we have to come back together chat about this in a couple of years to see how our predictions panned out. I'd like that. Well, thank you so much for being on the show is great to chat with you. I'm a very big fan of your work, and just keep up the good work at Legaltech News.

 

Zach Warren  33:26

Well, thank you very much. I'm a big fan of yours as well, and I  appreciate you having me on today.

 

Debbie Reynolds  33:30

Very nice. Thank you so much. Talk to you soon.