Privacy, one of the questions is the impact dobson might have on data privacy. We have with us a stellar panel of experts with diverse points of view on this topic. Thank you for being with us today. In the interest of time, i will keep our buyers brief but please find out more about them at right project. Org. The law firm of neto and johnson in d. C. His law firm covers , cybersecurity data protection, Homeland Security and regulation. From 2005 to 2009, he was the First Assistant secretary for policy at the department of Homeland Security, and general counsel of commission that examined weapons of mass disruption prior to the iraq war. He also posts the weekly podcast, the cyber law podcast. The department of Homeland Security. Mr. Baker is part of a National Security agencies and investigative weapons of mass destruction prior to the iraq war. In other Technology Issues he also has weekly podcast the cyber law podcast. Jean bauer is the rosenstiel distinguished professor of law at the university of arizona. James the Rogers College of law. She teaches and studies the fundamental problems that are well intended technology policies. Her Research Assesses the social cost and benefits of data and how new Information Technology is a fact of free speech, privacy, and competitive components. She serves as a codeputy director of the quantitative networks. Where she facilitates research on economic relic regulatory policy on her work has been featured in 20 scholar publications including the michigan log review and many others. She holds a bs in mathematics from yale and a ged from yell law school. Danielle is the distinguished professor in law and the caddell a chapman of law at the university of Virginia School of law. She teaches about privacy, for he asked russian, civil rights, and she serves as the inaugural director of the School Center which focuses on pressing to questions on technology. She focuses on civil rights initiatives. Her latest book privacy protecting identity and love in the current age will be out in october 2022. Her first crimes in cyberspace in was wildly praised in public reviews. She has essays including the yale law journal and many others for the past decade she has worked with lawmakers and Law Enforcement and Tech Companies to combat online abuse of tech intimate privacy. Our moderator today will be paul rosens pretty. He is a writer and speaker with a National Reputation in bible in cybersecurity and Homeland Security. He is part of the homeland Consulting Company that Homeland SecurityConsulting Company. He is our professed oriole and law at George University and a senior fellow in the tech program at American University of college of law. He is a member of the Cybersecurity Task force in the United States court of appeals in the district of columbia circuit. Advisory committee on admissions and grievances. He is a graduate of the university of law school and cyber warfare of how conflicts and cyberspace are challenging america and changing the world. After discussion between our Panel Experts if time allows, we will go to audience q and a. Please enter any questions that we have into the q and a function in the bottom of your window. Note, as always the Federalist Society and regulatory transparency project take note this could do take no position on legal or policy matters those topics shared are the opinions of those joining us. Paul you may start. Think you for that introduction. Of our topic and our guest. Im delighted to welcome everybody to this webinar discussion. The dogs decision in june was the do wasb an earthquake decision and it will havebs law of abortion. One of the most surprising at least to me, aspects of that that i would not have anticipated prior to its coming to court is hal dobbs is or may affect Online Privacy issues. To cite just one example, of where it was recently reported, in a case, out of nebraska where the Nebraska Police are investigating people for allegedly assisting and illegal abortion. They have salt from facebook the private messages of that individual. Implicating that both obviously the abortion issue itself, directly, but also for our purposes today, the question of then and how data privacy issues will intersect with the abortion right. I am sure, that everybody on the call, everybody listening and understands that data privacy is a broad and floppy subject ranging from messaging to geolocation to other aspects of our digital selves. And i hope that in this coming 45 minutes or an hour we will be able to explore all of how that bit of water reality intersects with this new understanding of personal privacy that arises in the coast dobbs world. So to begin, let me start by asking jane to introduce us to the topic. And to examine and expound upon the scope of the problem. How it connects to dobbs, and maybe use the case in nebraska as a jumping point and tell us more about it. And in the end, us all on the panel and those listening in the audience a reason why we are here and why this surprising turn of events has taken at least the data privacy world by storm. Jane . Youre right. There are Opinion Pieces and news items as well that have been quite persistent since the original dobbs opinion was leaked. So theres been a lot of focus on whether the data that was collected for some other Companies Might be repurposed in order to enforce the new abortion laws and criminal laws that may be coming down the pipes. So, i want to talk about the nebraska case and a little bit but let me start with data sources that are more likely to be animating the anxiety here. So this would include location data, that everyones cell phone provider collects. And also that many apps collect like gps app and whatnot. And things like Google Search data that wind up having search terms that are going to be going to indicate what a person was thinking about or researching. And theres a lot of report on period apps that specific apps that collect information about a womans minstrel cycle to the extent of those apps wind up sending the data off the device into a cloud in then there are concerns with general Data Security and also concerns about how the data might be used in combination with other types of data in order to determine that a woman in a particular state where abortion is illegal missed a. Mr. Period and then may have become pregnant and then later had a location data that suggest a slot out and abortion. So, all these types of data sources are useful for many criminal detections. And cases and what is happening for well over a decade now. But i would say, is also true that some crimes are more amenable to being detected in tract within this highly technological way than others. So seeking an abortion given the inevitable type of location changing nature of that service where a woman has to go someplace that might eventually be identified as a place where illegal abortions have been provided and stays there a while , that may have a particular data fingerprint that other crimes do not have. So it may be more likely that these types of crimes, if they become crimes, make use of this data for prosecution. And i should say that most of this data, of all noncontent data including location data, at least might be available to Law Enforcement using a subpoena. Or a warrant. The decision announced by the u. S. Supreme court changes that somewhat and puts some of that in question which we can talk about later. In response, for a setting, some Companies Including google have taken action. Google has promised it will delete data automatically delete data that is related to Location Tracking if a person visits a medical clinic. I am not sure that does not hold law in states within states for illegal abortions if the services are not taking place in the clinic. In any case, i think it is a gesture or more than a gesture, to try to remove the data from the temptation of Law Enforcement access. And another question that the data privacy Debate Alliance in my opinion is whether there is really an appetite for criminalizing and prosecuting women, in particular, for seeking an abortion. I would have said, maybe four years ago, even if roe was overturned there is simply not a viable political will to go after and prosecute women and abortion providers but i think that has changed. The nebraska case suggests theres been a shift. In fact, on the campaign trail when donald trump was running for president , he made a, at the time, a gaffe where he said why would we not prosecute women . And everyone understood that even the most prolife and politically active supporters of abortion bands did bans did not want to pay place that on women but i think the issue has shifted. So with criminal law whether that will emerge within states we dont know if they will criminalize laws within their own state and instead, one state is considering criminalizing crossing state borders in order to seek an abortion where it is legal in that jurisdiction. And so that raises not only data privacy questions, but interesting criminal law questions as well whether that is the type of behavior that should be in the view of terminal sanctions. So, finally, i am not sure that nebraska answers these questions they are kind of important and prerequisites for understanding the risk of data privacy violations. And that is whether states are likely to enact laws and enforce laws that most of us would find repugnant and contrary to what the criminal system should be used for. So i do not think that case is not a great case to hold out for fair hungering because it involves a mother guiding a 17yearold to abort her 23 week old fetus and so that, i think reasonable minds run a full gamut into forms terms of the morality of an abortion and where the interest for potential life starts to equal or surpass interest in of bodily and Economic Freedom of the mother. But i think we understand, many people think at some point, that happens and 23 weeks is a pretty long time. So if you seek an abortion in most countries in europe that would be illegal. So i am interested in whether we are likely to see prosecutions of this sort that would make use of this data. And if so, how carefully to define data privacy precautions that we might take. Mr. Baker that is a great introduction. Do either of you have scenarios that you think should be in the pot for consideration as potential avenues for data usage in criminal prosecution for abortions. Stewart . I think the pot is overfull with use cases already so i have no more to add. Danielle . And you mean, nash i will give an example. Dumps near Abortion Clinics as a potential way tower dumps are pulling location data from a cell phone tower near a location and it will be used, for example, in a bank robbery possibly. And one could imagine, the potential. Any others, i am trying to set the stage for before we talk about what we think about this. Right. I think it is important to recognize that Law Enforcement state federal and local have contracts with data risks. An location data brokers in particular but data brokers that have 3000 data point on each and everyone of us including whether we terminated pregnancies. The microscopic level of dita data. They have a contract on going right now. So the idea that we are, in all cases, going to have interesting Fourth Amendment questions, due to the for thirdparty doctrine, and i hope that some of these come back in we start rethinking in terms of geolocation how we address that. The reservoirs of information are overflowing and easily assessable to Law Enforcement. [no audio] mr. Rosenzweig did we just lose danielle . I believe so and she is frozen here as well. Mr. Rosenzweig well those are the big reason that zoom discussions so, hopefully we will get her back and perhaps one of the people like can reach out to her. Oh danielle. High. Sorry about that. Hi, sorry about that. I am at the law school i thought this would be the best place for this to be stable. Mr. Rosenzweig will let me go to a different subject and then come back to you danielle. If i was to characterize levels of concern, my prepanel understanding is that your levels of concern are significantly higher than janes and certainly higher than stewarts. We will come to you next, stuart. Put salt on the table. Tell us about why you are concerned with the issues that have been raised in your book which i hope to get a copy of when it comes out. And, tell us why you think this intersection is troubling. My work focuses on intimate privacy which is the privacy around and access to information about our bodies and health. Our closest relationships, our sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual activities, and innermost lots. Which we document with our Google Searches and all of our communication. By my lights, it is a foundational privacy value that deserves special protection. Because it is intimate privacy it is the precondition for human humans flourishing it enables us to figure out who we are and that is with people, it is not to say it is alone we are experimenting with trusted others. It enables us to enjoy a and social respect so that we are seen as full people rather than just our the dinosaur the highlight high likelihood of developing type two diabetes. We can be seen as holy integrated people. And charles explained it best. It is the precondition and oxygen for selflove. We reveal things to and love in general. We have vulnerability that allows because in so many ways, individuals, governments, and we are collecting hands over fists of information about our lives and under protecting it in ways that i think have long stream downstream effects that we cannot wrap our heads around that has to deal with discrimination and ranking people for jobs that you dont get an insurance premiums that go out that you do not realize and this is especially true for women and minorities. To go back to jeans discussion about your skepticism about the political will, i will drop from michelles book on policing the blackbody and weve seen over 400 prosecutions of black women and girls during pregnancies were either having taken drugs for during pregnancy or using Fetal Homicide Laws which is not meant for that it is usually meant for when somebody kills the mother and baby. And so we may see the most vulnerable prosecutions that may not affect the more privilege for us. But i think we will see, unfortunately, i you worried, jean, about the political will even in my own state at the moment about the prosecutions we might see depending on the rollout of the state criminalization laws. So we see companies that are the data handmaidens of the government and individuals as well. So individuals, if you got angry at a lever and you tell Law Enforcement i think my ex had an abortion here where she sent me i have spyware on her phone and this is exactly what she is doing, and that opens door to the surveillance of intimate life that we can close. So we been working with folks in the american do it data Privacy Protection act that my body, my health, there are various integral innovations happening on that and we will see what happens but we need special protection for intimate information. It is so essential to figure out who we are that i hope that we see developments on health. And contraceptives. I hope that was helpful. Mr. Rosenzweig give me a little more specifics. You are obviously concerned about the rows of prosecution potentiality. That is kind of a political question that is not tied directly to the data issue. Let me ask you this one, are more data concerns about abortion are they unique to abortion for do you have the same concerns about intimacy privacy being defined. Whether it is transgender is him or marriage, sexual orientation, whatever. s right. Because i wrote my book totally. It is interesting you are so right, i cannot deck dictate what state legislatures are going to do in their judgment and assessment that it will be criminal law. With a warrant, you would think this is appropriate, and the Supreme Court said there is no constitutional right in the u. S. Constitution there is no right to privacy or that they recognized in the 14th amendment due process clause so i wrote my book i am working on [no audio] oh bummer. Mr. Rosenzweig it was going to be an interesting point might i am sure. Mrs. Citron and it concerns me. Or be back . Ok yeah i will go back. It helps srap our heads around why i care about intimate privacy. Individuals will deprive each other of intimate privacy and it is often been depriving women and girls of their intimate privacy and what i mean by that, there are 9500 sites right now, many of them posted in the u. S. , that talk intimate images of people without their consent. Photos intimate images or sexually explicit photos and it is not always an where of womans face is morphed into form. And when that is accompanied by your full name and your home address, it is not only devastating to you personally because you have such an incredible fear about who will approach you, it changes your sense of safety but it changes your Economic Opportunities teachers have lost their jobs because Google Searches of their names include nonconsensual pornography. And also high school principals. And nurses, it is every type of person can be tormented and do not have a comprehensive approach to intimate privacy and we not have enough lowcost counsel, there are laws on the books and they unfortunately stay on the books and not processed in reality so we have challenges with that. It has been crazy when it comes to companies. Lets take grinder for example. Grinder was encouraging it was a hook up app for gay men by and trans men and the app was encouraging people and doctors were thrilled Public Health officials were thrilled to share their hiv status because you could have open in conversations about protection and safer sex that way. But the washington journal wrote a story that grinder was selling and sharing that information with third parties. And the fallout was, from a lot of people, i am not sharing this information anymore. First of all, i know it is open to discrimination and i worry. And what could be so prosocial and is crucial to our selfdevelopment and love and sex not just love but all the ways in which we connect with one another. So, we are woefully im under protected in that information. Because i noticed with joyce she is like we told you so in our Privacy Policy and we need to do better. Stewart, if i could characterize, i hope fairly, daniels point, is that there is no intimate privacy in other areas no privacy about intimate issues in other areas of the law and even though weve not seen a lot of it, a lot of it reportion in the abortion era theres no reason to think if the state criminalizes it that that is the ground for her concern. I know, i am sure that you are skeptical of the need for that concern. That you think that this is i wont say attempt this in a teapot but a less significant than danielle or perhaps jane have shared. Tell us why. Sure. Let me start with what i thought we were going to be talking about and then move to this other. And i will say, you are accurately you have summarized my view. I must say, when talking about going back into government, that the only job that i would take is the chief privacy skeptic job. And since there is no such job, i will have to do it from where i sit. The thing i was struck by was the rush to turn jobs dobbs into a privacy issue in the complete lack lack of any basis for doing that. It is bizarre to me. People said, they will track you to an Abortion Clinic that is providing illegal abortions and then you will be in trouble. But of course, as we have said, already, most of the focus of these regulatory laws is on the clinics. If it is illegal to provide an abortion and yours eight, there isnt going to be a clinic or location that you can be tracked to. And so, the whole notion that you will be tracked to a place where it is clear you are committing a crime is, i think completely without basis. So then people say, well, but if you go to an outofstate clinic you can be tracked to the outofstate clinic and i think the problem with that is that this assumes all kinds of things. It assumes that state legislatures are going to be so enthusiastic about expanding of portion so the idea you will be tracked to another states clinic and criminalized for that is also without foundation. And, there were five votes as i counted them in the Dobbs Decision in itself to say that states cannot do that and that it would be a violation of the right to travel. So, one, we do not see the laws, and two, we do not see the likelihood that the laws will be upheld and that happened appetite for criminalizing the behavior of women who are seeking abortions is really really limited. There have been some prosecutions of women who got illegal abortions prior to jobs dobbs either because they abuse their fetuses or because in the nebraska case, theres probably three of these a year, because they got a very late abortion and did as the woman in the nebraska case did and put it into a plastic bag so youre not sure that the fetus might have died in the back. And then dug it up at the end and burned the body. There are a lot of violations of law that have nothing to do with abortion that are typically used to prosecute those kinds of things. But, location data is not going to be relevant and that as far as i can see in any of those prosecutions. So, we are at a point where there is no point in talking about the way in which your location data is going to make you susceptible to prosecution after dogs. Dobbs. But you see a pivot to privacy and privacy can be intruded upon by evidence gathering techniques that use your electronics against you. And since we are talking about privacy and dobbs lets talk about why we need a new privacy bill. That takes us to a privacy question. I have not thought deeply about this with privacy but it does seem to me that we have definitional questions they are. I want to reveal my hiv status to the people im trying to have sex with so i am volunteering that information. Do i want that information used to tell me about a new hiv treatment that is now commercially available . Well, probably. Do i want it sold to somebody that is willing to use it and help me in my capacity as a teacher . No. , but the idea of dividing that by saying it is intimate privacy and therefore we solve a problem strikes me as only an opening and not actually selecting things that we do not like that we are trying to address. So, yes, i think that you can certainly imagine privacy abuses that we ought to address. But i think we are better off to asking what are the crimes we are trying to stop . And what are the good things we will prevent by stopping those in a very broadbased way . And all of those, are the same questions within wrestling with for 20 years on the question of how we should regulate privacy and it is true that they said it is a human right and we will define it later. I think getting close to that with the label of intimate privacy. Lets label it privacy and then worry about the details later. I think we are better off asking what we are trying to do and how we would regulate it in a way that will achieve our results without doing damage to values that we care about. Let me follow up. It strikes me, from this first set of rounds here, that i had may be in this discussion to address the privacy implications of dobbs. An abstract it from other intimate privacy problems. But, it seems to me, that the consensus in this group is that there really is no difference in illegal framework between into me intimate privacy through the example of greiner and exposing hiv status and abortion status. So, assuming that is fair characterization and maybe you will say no, but maybe assuming that is fair for everybody is your lack of concern then based on your predictive judgment that the criminalization of women for having an abortion is radically unlikely to become congress . Yeah and i think if it does become commonplace that we will talk about it in five or six years but i think its weird for everyone to be talking about dobbs and not what limits are on abortion instead of talking about what we ought to do about tech data. It is a very unfortunate focus as we panic about the location data because google has said we will not collect information on visits to Abortion Clinics. So if somebody goes to an Abortion Clinic and assassinate somebody who is providing abortions, we will not have the usual information we would have about who did it because google will have to scrub the data about the existence of the clinic. I think it is not serving any purpose to protect women but it has all kinds of unfortunate secondary consequences. Let me circle around and come to you, jane, and ask you first do you share stewarts predictive thoughts about the future and is that relative to the issues we are talking about at all . Is it an abstract view . Mrs. Bambauer i will try to square the circle because i do not share stewarts prediction. Like him, i think it is unlikely that a lot of states will put a criminal stature on the books but also vigorously enforce it. However, i am softening that prediction. There are powerful political minorities that are running the show in the Republican Party that might want that sort of law and wants to see active enforcement. And so, i think the data privacy question is related to the criminal law question but not in the way ive heard expressed so far to let me try to do it. I think the growing anxiety about the amount and detail of the data that is currently available with some level of process for Law Enforcement really forces us to focus on a potential world where we can actually detect all these crazy crimes that we have on the books. And some of the crimes are not crazy. And so when i read pieces like danielles, it was excellent but when i read it as using the abortion prosecution as a reason to worry about data privacy, i think about all the examples that stewart raise. Well the exact same data is used for child abduction and sexual abuse. Intimacy is a source of great social welfare but also can be a great threat. And so, crying, in general is a real disruption of intimacy and a tawny and health. We should care a lot about the crimes that are bad. For me, it raises the question data privacy should force us to focus not on the collection phase of data there are too many valuable uses for this data and that will not stop, it will only intensify, but we probably should not focus on data transfers, per se, but we need to start thinking about the implications of uses and whether that implies that Something Else in our criminal system is not functioning. Maybe that we are over punishing things and thinking about Constitutional Rights in the Fourth Amendment and due process amendments on wet criminal laws can be brought out in the first place. And otherwise these are the same sources of data that would be used like if in danielle gives the enforcement she wants for criminal violations or harassing women by creating data with their faces. I think the same data will be tracked for who did it. Who was online at this time and posted that picture. So i think the data privacy problem and rather the policy solutions, are going to be more tricky than finding intimate privacy. Let me finish this round then we will change to another topic. But jane has essentially said it is not the collection of the transfer. And it is what i sometimes bring read about as privacy as consequent. In the same data that you are worried about him revealing interest me interest intimacy. Do you accept that framing and are we just talking about implications of the use or do you think that privacy is a stronger read that needs to be independently considered. Unsurprisingly, i will disagree with my beloved friend julie, whom i do love. , there is information that our tools and services do not need to collect keep, process, and store. So we if you are using a tool or service they do not need to know and store details about your sex life and details about preferences for certain individuals with health information. If they do not need to store that information for providing you that service they should not collect it or store it. The risks it is true there are long and downstream and they will often impact women and minorities as well as racial minorities. The information that is ultimately sold, shared, reshared and repurposed and included has an impact on peoples Life Opportunities including their ability to get a job and interview and Life Insurance premiums there are real consequences in the here and now. I do not think we should collect it and it makes the Security Issues less complicated. If we do not have it we do not worry about it being in the hands of hackers. So i think Data Collection should be on the table as part of the conversation Going Forward and i might disagree about the information you need to find a harasser and stalker and intimate privacy hacker. Is that information about your health body your reading habits, not precisely, it would not be intimate information, so i think it is not that it is easy. I would disagree with stewart that you cannot define it i will i try to define it as clearly as i can we can define intimate privacy and what we mean by it. And i do not think that the idea that moral panic idea that stewart raises look to pre1973. Women were self aborting and engaging in practices where people were providing help in getting an abortion. So you are saying this will never happen there will never be a state where it is illegal in a certain amount of time i say that it is absurd because we have a lot of history that shows us that girls and pregnant people will seek out the possibility and there are people who want to provide. So it seems to me that theres a whole lot of harm that the Supreme Court ignored and there are harms that it is immoral not a moral panic that we ought to wrestle with. It is not why, but it is a part of it. Let me transition to this, before i do the transition, i say to all of those who are participating online, we have been at this for 45 minutes. So in a few minutes i will turn to your questions drop them in the q and a on zoom if you will. I do not know how people on cspan can ask questions. Maybe theres a methodology but nobody told me about it. Stewart, let me ask you this question, i would like to dig deeper. Weve been talking about data privacy as an undifferentiated set of technologies. Everything from private messages on facebook and period apps to location data. And, in my hypothetical, tower docks. Do you think that we can or should be able to differentiate between those . Mr. Baker that private messages on facebook are different than location data or do you see it as an undifferentiated mass. No, of course it is different. Although weirdly i understand danielle and others talking about intimate privacy. They are treating location data as intimate data when in fact, it is rarely, sometimes it will be intimate, but the very same data which i care not a bit about google having for apps i would care a lot if somebody was encouraging a physical attack on me and publishing my address. So, i cannot say that the data is intimate, it is the use that as you said, that it is put to that raises questions about whether it should be regulated. So, i think the more we look at particular cases, the more we will say we really cannot just say the data needs to be characterized. People used to say, the obvious one is health data what could be more intimate than that . We should treat that as sensitive data. And then i remember when the Swedish Data Protection Authority imposed a fine on a Church Newsletter for wishing a guy who had broken his leg that he get well soon because it was disclosing intimate health data about this person without his permission. So, it is almost no way to separate these things in context and treat them as special. To my knowledge. And then comes the question of do you need this data . Surely, if there is anything we can say, that you need the data you have services that need the data it is location. Anything from maps to finding nearby businesses. We will give that up with enthusiasm and if we say you cannot use it except to provide a service, you are essentially saying using data to serve as is out of bounds, yet, most of the things we value on the internet are intimately, if i can say it, tied to the use of some of the data to serve that. In many cases we are enthusiastic about that. We want to know about products we been looking for were talking about or using we get online. So, in we will totally transform the internet economy and downgrade large numbers of apps and services, we cannot just casually say if you do not need it to provide that service, you cannot have it. So, again, it seems to me that we are courting massive consequences on the basis of anecdotes. You ran back to Location Services so i was trying to get you to answer, for me whether or not you think private messages on facebook would maybe be in a different category. Which is the nebraska case. Absolutely. I always think it is creepy that google has been reading my mail. They are not serving me ads based on what is in my email, but sure, communications in u. S. Law have been separated out and given special treatment even as to government searches for at least since the 1980s and probably since the 60s. The things that we communicate are much more deserving of protection than facts mr. Rosenzweig about us. We are getting good questions and here let me ask anyone on the panel a factual question. One of the members ask our bare states attempting to pass legislation that would allow the prosecution for women having an abortion. Either jane or daniel knows the answer to that. Either of you . Mrs. Bambauer well i thought the answer was yes, i thought. I was considering i am so sorry. If anyone in the q a wants to put in a link to this item. Mrs. Citron some media outlet has a running of the proposed laws but there are laws that would provide apply to women the bounty law. Anyone who helps a woman in the effort to get abort a pregnancy theres a bounty of 10,000 so the implications are broader than just criminal. Mr. Rosenzweig another easy question before i get to a deep one someone asked, i assume the answer is yes, that everybody on the panel would think that the same sense of concern may apply to people who want to go to crisis Pregnancy Centers. Which, for those who do not know, our centers intended to encourage them to keep their children and not abort them. Does anybody think that whatever it is we think about this that the answer would be different for privacy Pregnancy Crisis Centers . I did not see a criminal prosecution there that the data being accessible i did not see a difference. Mr. Baker eyes could see regulation being aggressive or punitive of crisis Pregnancy Centers. But the political surveillance will be switched it will be the blue state say we do not want these people to be online or to be advertised. We want google to put cautions on their ads. We think they are misleading people. They are persuading people to not get abortions and not helping them with their pregnancy. So we will see efforts to regulate them aggressively that i cannot believe they will punish the people that go to them. I think it is useful for a debate about data privacy to hold to use cases in your mind that have maybe crisis policy centers is not the one but crossing state lines to go to a gun show, we can imagine, mr. Baker i love that one if guns are illegal. Mrs. Bambauer right so whatever data Privacy Management you have should not be well we should have privacy when i dont like the law and we should have it when i do like the law. Mr. Baker that is really where most of the privacy debate is at. Mrs. Citron i keep with the Privacy CenterPregnancy Centers which deals with private information about our health. It is not an intimate privacy but it is an important point that you make. That we should have opposing use cases in our heads to make sure we are supporting politics. Let me offer one further example marijuana use it is legal in some states it is a crime in others, we really have had a surprisingly low number of states trying to prosecute people from their state who go to other states and get high legally. And even the federal government makes it a felony in the state where it is legal has not aggressively prosecuted people they are. So i am not sure that was some of these hard issues where everybody people of good faith have very different views, whether the people even the people who want it to be criminal and take it so far as to say it is legal where you do it we still want to penalize. I think the fetus changes that example entirely. Because smoking pot you are doing harm to yourself but the principle when it comes to prolife folks they think it is a person. So part of getting yourself addicted to drugs is not affecting a life that the prolife story would have. Though it is a bit different. I am very conscious of the fact that for 50 years this was a debate that was polarized and one side did not have to show up in the other side could say anything they wanted and now everybody has to have a view. And most of the views that have been expressed in polls are middleoftheroad. And it would be easy as a politician, now i would say is a conservative politician to get burned by saying i can say anything because i have always said anything because thats not the case anymore. Mr. Rosenzweig this is great i have many more questions but we are coming up on the top of the hour so let me pick one that is good point. Because i ask questions of all three so i will read all three and go in the opposite direction of which i read them. Stuart, to the extent to which the things we communicate our facts about us. Dont you think that all aspects of private communications whether health or otherwise would be characterized as private . Danielle, can you give us an example of private data that can be at risk of revealing post dobbs something that a conservative would balk at and react to. And jane, can you frame your reasoning for why privacy matters less, than in this persons perception, hypothetical future crimes. Do those make sense to you guys . I am good. Go for it jane you can go first. Yeah my critique of using dobbs to shape the privacy debate is that we are asking privacy to do too much. Basically most of the concerns that we are raising with respect to prosecuting women trying to seek an abortion stem from the fact that either we dont think abortion should be legal at all, that describes a good number, possibly a majority of people in this country, or, if it is illegal, it should be a regulatory issue. Not rising to the level of actually putting someone in jail. And, given that that is my in steve my instinct about what is driving that anxiety. I think we should focus on the point. What should the criminal code be . How do we know what sorts of things should be regulated versus actually morally and having externalities that are so bad that we actually want to put a persons life on hold and incarcerate them. Danielle . I think we should go back to wine and brandeis and the reason they give about writing to the letter to the sun is not having a letter was not having lunch with the mom. Even in the letter, they say no one should be reading that letter except if you want other people to read it. It could be your alexa echo in your home collecting data or conversation you have in the bathroom or the bedroom. I feel that it would be whispered in closets, shall not be shouted from the rooftops. Maybe im wrong but im hoping i can get some adherence on the conservative side. Stewart . You are defending the extreme end of your view. Then i will join danielle. I think i said we have always treated communications as more private and provided more legislative support or protection for communications if not in every communication, if its a matter of intimate privacy, im guessing that no more than two per week of mine come close. Its enough that treating the categories separately is acceptable. Its a reasonable way to address what is a quite reasonable concern about how disastrous it would be if everything we ever said communication was available to everybody stop that said, we have exceptions. You are talking to somebody who has willingly agreed to where it wire, you have no ive seen at all. If you are talking about the government has cause to believe that your conversation is suspicious, then we have no right to see. I see that stephen has rejoined is live. We have the visual cue that our timing is up. I will say thank you and he will say thank you. Thanks to my friends for participating in this conversation and for a really engaging, thoughtful and civil discussion which is so rare these days. Im overjoyed to be able to participate with you. Steve . Thank you to our panel of experts for sharing your insight today and thanks to the audience for joining us. For more content like this, visit cspant your comments there or send a tweet with the handle cspanwj. Washington post wording this week that the experts say the crisis was years