The Deepdive

Your Smart Toaster is Watching You: The Global Battle for Your Data

• Allen & Ida • Season 2 • Episode 19

Share episode

Send us a text

Is your smart toaster really watching you—or is that just tomorrow’s headline? In this episode of The Deepdive, Allen and Ida take you on a witty but revealing journey through the tangled world of everyday tech, AI-powered surveillance, and the global tug-of-war over your personal data.

We break down how governments, data brokers, and clever algorithms are all competing to know what’s in your toast (and maybe even your calendar). Expect sharp analysis of the latest developments in surveillance tech, surprising stories about the privacy trade-offs in your favorite gadgets, and practical tips for reclaiming a bit of control in a world that’s increasingly plugged in and watched.

Tune in for a debate—equal parts laugh and gasp—about what privacy might look like for regular users in 2030, and why it pays to know just how smart (and sneaky) your devices can get.



Leave your thoughts in the comments and subscribe for more tech updates and reviews.

Allan:

Imagine it's a 2030. Okay. You walk into your smart kitchen, maybe just gonna make some coffee. Everything's connected down right. So how much of that room think about the smart meter, the apps on your phone, how much of it is just uh silently collecting data on you? We're doing a deep dive today into what the surveillance economy really means. And uh maybe more importantly, are we actually powerless here? Yeah, because our sources, they don't just look at, you know, the gadgets themselves. They're drawing these lines, connecting global digital reliance, like who actually controls the internet's plumbing directly to the superpersonal data coming from your devices. So our mission today is to unpack the geopolitics of it all, this big picture, and then really look at the tools and the policies that might just might put you back in control.

Ida:

Absolutely. And the conversation, maybe surprisingly, starts right at the top. There's this dominant idea now among global powers that data, well, data is the new oil.

Allan:

Right. We hear that phrase a lot.

Ida:

We do. And that perception that's elevated information from just a business asset to a core geopolitical thing. It changes how states act, how the big platform companies act. So understanding your personal data, what happens to it, means you first have to grapple with these massive global power shifts, global control over software, over infrastructure. That's what lets someone make money off your smart fridge data, basically.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Okay, that's quite a leap connecting my uh my toaster's habits to national security. So if data is this big strategic thing now, how does that information power, as you called it, actually change how countries behave?

Ida:

Well, it fundamentally redefines what national security even is. You've got technologies like 5G, you have advanced AI, massive computing power. These things force major powers to think about security in terms of who controls the actual flow of information, which brings us to this concept, uh, the digital dependent structure. DDI for short.

Allan:

Aaron Powell DDI, okay, break that down for us.

Ida:

So the DDI basically maps out how uneven this digital landscape is across the globe. And maybe unsurprisingly, our sources consistently point to the US as, well, the least digitally dependent nation.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Why is that?

Ida:

It's primarily because US companies control so much of that foundational software infrastructure. Think browsers, operating systems, social media platforms, search engines, the core stuff. China and South Korea are definitely gaining ground, making strides, but most of the world is lagging pretty far behind in terms of controlling their own digital destiny, so to speak.

Allan:

And you can really see that vulnerability, that dependence. When you look at Europe, can't you? Yeah. The sources suggest their autonomy gaff compared to the US and China has actually gotten wider.

Ida:

That's right.

Allan:

So if you're a policymaker, maybe in Brussels, letting foreign tech giants run your digital show, well, that starts to look like you're handing over economic leverage, maybe even political vulnerability. It's being framed very explicitly over there as an economic risk, a security risk, and a political one, too.

Ida:

Exactly. And if we bring that huge macro picture back down to the individual, back to you listening, the control of that core infrastructure, the software dependence, we talked about OS, social media, search that dictates who ultimately gets to profit from your personal data stream. It doesn't really matter where you live. This unequal setup, this distribution of digital capabilities, it can even lead to what some analysts are calling digital colonialism.

Allan:

Digital colonialism.

Ida:

Yeah. Yeah. Basically, where regions that are digitally dependent find their citizens' data is constantly being extracted, siphoned off, without that region getting the equivalent economic or political benefits back.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Okay, so governments are fighting over the internet's backbone. Fine. But what does this actually mean for the average person? Back in that smart kitchen in 2030, how much data are we really talking about? Is it actually up for grabs?

Ida:

Oh, it's a staggering amount. And often from devices you wouldn't even immediately think of as surveillance tools. We need to look way beyond just social media feeds. Take smart meters, for example. They're pretty common now. They aren't just clocking your total energy use for the month. No, they're tracking your consumption at a really granular level, usually like every half hour.

Allan:

And this is where it gets both fascinating and frankly a bit ridiculous, isn't it? Researchers, they've actually managed to figure out incredibly personal stuff just from those half-hourly smart meter readings.

Ida:

Like what, specifically?

Allan:

Well, we're talking about things like inferring people's sleeping patterns, knowing their approximate location within their own home, even telling if they're sitting down or standing up. Ow. And get this, they could even figure out which TV channel someone was watching. Apparently, it's all deduced from these tiny electromagnetic interference signals that different appliances give off.

Ida:

Okay, that's wow. The moment you realize your toaster might know your TV habits better than your best friend.

Allan:

Exactly. It just perfectly shows how every connected device basically becomes another sensor logging aspects of your life in ways we couldn't have imagined, even say, 10 years ago.

Ida:

And while the smart appliances are maybe the surprising data collectors, let's not forget the foundation of this surveillance economy. The social media and app ecosystem.

Allan:

Right, their whole business model.

Ida:

Their entire model hinges on harvesting user data. Yes, the content you post, sure, but maybe more importantly, all the metadata.

Allan:

Explain metadata again.

Ida:

Things like your location when you post, the time of the upload, who you interact with, your scrolling patterns, how long you look at something. Most of that stuff is logged automatically behind the scenes.

Allan:

And when you put all these different data streams together, that's where the real danger lies, isn't it?

Ida:

Aaron Powell Precisely. That leads us straight to what's called the mosaic effect. This is a really sophisticated threat. It's where sensitive, useful information about you isn't revealed by looking at just one data set, maybe one that seemed safe or anonymized on its own. Instead, it's revealed by combining, by layering together multiple different data sets that might have seemed harmless individually. Put them together though, and suddenly you can see these deep, highly sensitive patterns about specific people or even whole groups who might be vulnerable.

Allan:

That mosaic threat, that combination, it makes you feel completely exposed, especially when you think about powerful AI systems anerizing all this. And since AI is such a big geopolitical focus now, too, how did these AI models themselves become surveillance threats to individuals?

Ida:

Aaron Powell Yeah, the threat here gets quite technical. AI models, especially the powerful ones, are often trained on huge amounts of proprietary, sometimes very sensitive data. Think medical images or financial transaction records. Now, when these trained models are finished and deployed out into the world, they themselves can become vulnerable to certain kinds of attacks. For instance, if a model is uh, let's say overtrained, meaning it fits the training data too perfectly, it can actually risk revealing granular details about the original data it was trained on.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Wait, hang on. So if I make my AI too good, too specific, the finished product could essentially leak the private information that went into training it. How does that happen if the data was supposed to be protected?

Ida:

Well, the leakage often happens when attackers cleverly combine information they get from the model's outputs with other data they might have access to, maybe public records, other databases. These are called linkage attacks. But maybe the most sophisticated threat is something called a model inversion attack.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Model inversion.

Ida:

Yeah. This is where an attacker, just by carefully studying the final deployed AI model and how it responds to inputs, can actually start to reverse engineer and reconstruct significant chunks of the original private training data set. It's like digital espionage, but targeting the AI's brain itself.

Allan:

That genuinely sounds like some kind of tech arms race. Attacks and offenses. But you mentioned solutions earlier. If those are the attacks, what's the defense? This brings us to privacy-enhancing technologies, right? PETs.

Ida:

PETs, exactly. They really are your best technical line of defense in this 2030 scenario we're painting. PETs are basically a whole suite of cryptographic and statistical tools. They're designed to let organizations get the maximum benefit from using data for analysis, for research, computation, whatever, while drastically minimizing the risk that any information about specific individuals gets disclosed. Sometimes people even call them partnership-enhancing technologies because they can build trust and allow collaboration, even between competitors, where maybe mistrust would normally prevent it.

Allan:

Okay, well, let's make that concrete. Can you walk us through maybe the core three PETs, starting with uh secure multi-party computation, SMPC?

Ida:

Absolutely. So, secure multi-party computation, SMPC. It's a cryptographic technique. What it lets you do is have multiple parties, maybe organizations that don't trust each other, or even competing companies, run a joint analysis on their combined data without any of them ever having to reveal their private individual data inputs to anyone else. They compute in the blind, so to speak.

Allan:

And there's a brilliant real-world example of this, isn't there? With the smart meter privacy issue in the Netherlands.

Ida:

That's right. They used SMPC to tackle exactly that problem. They ran a pilot program where they could calculate the total energy usage and the average usage across six neighboring houses. The energy grid operator got the aggregate number they needed for planning, but the analysts who actually ran the SMPC calculation never saw the private energy consumption data for any single household. That's real privacy by design in action.

Allan:

Brilliant. Okay, what's next? Differential privacy. DP.

Ida:

Differential privacy, DP. This one's more of a statistical technique rather than purely cryptographic. How it works is by deliberately adding a carefully measured amount of noise. Think of it as random alteration to the result of a statistical query or analysis. This added noise makes it impossible to know for sure whether any one individual's data was included in the computation or what their specific contribution was. And the cool part is the data controller can actually mathematically quantify the level of privacy protection they're providing using a metric called the privacy budget.

Allan:

Got it. So DP protects the output of the analysis, makes it useful for statistics, but individually deniable. Okay, last one. Federated learning, W, FL.

Ida:

Right, federated learning or FL. This is becoming really important in fields that deal with distributed, highly sensitive data that you really don't want to centralize. Think healthcare research across different hospitals or maybe fraud detection across different banks. FL lets you train a central AI model collectively using data that stays put on remote servers, like on different hospital servers, for example. The raw patient data never has to leave the local hospital's control. Instead, updates to the model are sent back and aggregated. So you get the benefit of training on diverse data, improving the model for everyone, but without the huge risk that comes from creating one giant centralized honeypot of sensitive information.

Allan:

Okay, so the tech is there. SMPC, DP, FL, these tools exist. But you know, technology alone usually isn't enough, is it? We need policy, we need laws to really change the underlying incentives driving this whole data economy. What does a comprehensive privacy-first legal approach actually look like, according to the sources?

Ida:

Aaron Powell Well, it looks like legislation that tries to get right to the root cause of these surveillance harms. And that really means tackling the business model itself. One of the most crucial components that experts recommend for any strong modern privacy law is an outright prohibition on online behavioral advertising.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Whoa, hold on. To ban behavioral ads, wouldn't that completely break the free internet model that so much relies on? Isn't that like an economic impossibility?

Ida:

Well, that's definitely the core tension, yes. But the argument from privacy advocates is that behavioral advertising is the fundamental incentive driving companies to harvest such enormous quantities of personal data in the first place. It's the engine of the surveillance economy. So the idea is if you remove that specific incentive, businesses would be forced to shift towards other models, maybe contextual advertising, which is based on the content of the page, not the user's history, or perhaps more subscription models. Proponents argue this would immediately deflate the surveillance economy and force companies to practice real data minimization.

Allan:

Data minimization, right, that keeps coming up. Only collecting the data that's strictly necessary to actually provide the service the user signed up for. Exactly. And mandating strong, unambiguous opt-in consent, none of those confusing dark patterns designed to trick you into agreeing.

Ida:

Absolutely critical. And speaking of fairness, another point our sources really stress is the need to ban pay-for-privacy schemes.

Allan:

What are those exactly?

Ida:

That's where a company might offer you a basic service that tracks you, but then says you can pay a premium fee for a version that respects your privacy more. The argument against this is that privacy should be a fundamental right, not a luxury good that only wealthier people can afford. Your consent to data processing has to be genuinely free, not coerced because the private option costs more or offers a worse service.

Allan:

Aaron Powell Okay, that makes sense. Privacy shouldn't be up for sale. And we should probably affirm here that users aren't completely powerless even now.

Ida:

Yeah.

Allan:

Under the laws like GDPR and others, you do have established rights, don't you?

Ida:

Aaron Powell You absolutely do. Rights like the right to access the data companies hold on you, the right to port it somewhere else, the right to correct inaccuracies, and crucially the right to delete your data.

Allan:

Aaron Powell But how effective are those rights if they're hard to enforce?

Ida:

That's the key question. These rights can feel a bit like empty promises if there's no real mechanism for enforcement. For users to truly feel like they had some control back, many experts argue they need what's called a private right of action. Meaning. Meaning the ability for individuals or groups of individuals to actually sue corporations directly when they violate these statutory privacy rights. That's what gives the law real teeth, acts as a genuine deterrent, and provides a necessary check on corporate power. So look, today we've really traced these two parallel worlds, haven't we? On one hand, you have this world of increasing global digital dependence, largely fueled by relentless data harvesting. And on the other hand, you have this emerging world of technical countermeasures, the PTs we discussed, and these strong policy ideas designed to try and reclaim some individual and national autonomy. The push and pull is happening right now.

Allan:

Okay, let's try and boil this down for you one last time. The bottom line seems to be this the technology does exist to protect you better. SPC, differential privacy, federated learning. And the policy levers, like banning behavioral advertising or mandating data minimization, would fundamentally change the whole game, change the incentive for collecting your data in the first place. But whether these countermeasures actually get widely adopted, whether these laws get passed, that seems to come down entirely to public awareness and ultimately user demand pushing for it. And remember, when we talk about privacy in, say, 2030, maybe it's less about some single ominous Big Brother figure watching everything. It's perhaps much more about this vast complex marketplace that's silently, constantly buying and selling tiny fractions of your attention, your habits, your preferences. So when it comes to your privacy in this data economy, ignorance really isn't bliss. It's just, well, it's just free data for someone else. Now might be a good time to go check the privacy settings on your favorite app, or maybe see what your smart device manufacturer is really collecting.

Head Shot

Allan

Host
Head Shot

Ida

Host