Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Constitution center. Such a pleasure to are you here. And Jeffrey Rosen car president of this wonderful institution. The National Constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis and is part of the wonderful mandate, we have three goals for we the people in a rare copy of the bill of rights. We are center for Civic Education that we are americans townhall, the one place that i meant outside the constitutional debates different in American Society and allow citizens to make up their own mind. In the past weeks in coming months weve had such a remarkable exciting variety of townhall programs. Just like week we had a debate between [inaudible] about whether the constitution has power to kill its citizens abroad. About the socially now but after browsing speak, the audience changed its mind ts. Tomorrow, jeff toobin from the new yorker is going to come for a great discussion of whether constitution is broken. In the spring, we had better leaders springvale. Im so excited about the dizzying array for making one of its era. As to mancini on James Madison to several books about the anniversary at and here in the Constitutional Center every day of the week we are so proud to share with you. Please look at our redesigned website, Constitution Center. Org as well as her weekly podcast and we hope you enjoyed them much as presented presenting them. Of all the topics im privileged to discuss at the Great National car duchenne center, there is none im more excited about the private the and more that im looking forward to meeting in person. Data julia angwin. Where fellow soldiers in the trenches for many years. We both written about privacy and theres no reporter in america for whom i know more than julia. Your pathbreaking port about the tangible harms of online tracking and especially the details about how much precisely is being collected and what is being done with it. Yuri seidel as for the Pulitzer Prize twice about because of your incredible wall street journal series on the subject, which reveals for the first time something many of us had no, which is people are actually charge different prices online based on the profile basic algorithms without our knowledge. Some of the other many great achievement, she is currently at your boss at the wonderful independent news organization. Report of the wall street journal from 2000 to 2013 and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011. She was on a team of reporters the one the pulitzer in 2003 in explanatory reporting for corruption. Also the oster stealing my space, the battle to control the most popular website in america. Im so thrilled to discuss her new book, dragnet nation a quest for privacy, security, and freedom in a world of relentless surveillance. Welcome, julia angwin. [applause] thank you tiered with so much to discuss. I went to sever the question. What surprised you most about how much countries in the government know you but you . Guest thank you for having me here. Im a huge fan. In my book, dragnet nation, decided to take the privacy and best edition by investigating myself. What is known about and what can i protect . So i got my data from as many places as i could find, which is actually very few places. For instance, in identifying 200 data breakers but only it doesnt let me see files because theres no law requiring them to pay even a small set of files, it was shocking how wrong some of them are and how right some of them were. Some companies were completely wrong. When companies had a never completed college, was a single mother and had Poverty Level income. None of those happen to be true. Other files are incredibly detailed and had every address ive ever lived at going back to the number in the tournament college, which i had actually forgotten. Every member of my family perfectly associated to me and all sorts of purchases imai, including once i made fairly recently. So on the whole, they knew a lot about me. Occasionally they do all sorts of wrong things about me. I couldnt decide which one not reach me more. The depth and precision of your researches the price mean and freaked me out a little bit. Google Search History was incredibly shocking to me. Since i joined gmail in 2006, and theyve been storing all of ms. Urges. Thats a long time. When i started to look at my searches, i realized how revealing they were. They were far more revealing than addresses because theres a map of every single day i wake up in the morning and google the weather and then something about something with my kids school. Then i would look of a article was researching. Then i would start relay shopping for kids clothing. You could just be my mind making as little leaps. There was a record of the mental madness. You relate to search me and i quit using Google Search after that. Will talk about the alternatives and how you cope with them. There was more that struck me. You got your tsa records and found the description of why you are going abroad for a reporting trip was actually reported to private companies and turned over to the government. This was shocking. It went to the customs of border control. One of the few sets of files you can obtain fairly easily it easily means waiting three months and writing letters. So it was incredibly good. What i learned from it, the wall street journal where i was working used to travel agents become which use the system that basically automatically sent some of the internal communications i have with my boss. I had to fill out an online form about my atmosphere traveling comic veteran. That is, travel would get approved. By the virtue of no ones paying attention, all as can indications were into government files. When i got this, they understandably flips out because they have knowledge of where reporters are going about this story. They actually stopped working with Us Travel Agency for a period of time until they got it fixed. This is one of the data age we live in right now. If i asked the wall street journal, then save the cure, right here. They didnt know. The amount of inaccuracies, which is, it would seem hard to get a sense of control and handle on just how much. It is difficult to get a handle on it and im sure i dont have a handle on it. Ive probably seen a very thin layer at the top about the known about me. If they do share, for instance, facebook give me an archive of what they have on me. We know from a european who obtain a fuller set of his data under privacy laws that what i saw was less than what they have because his file, it had everyone who had deleted his friends. It actually kind of cat the things he thought were gone. The one i saw were sanitized version. Okay, we are going to discuss in a little bit the steps he took to protect your privacy. I want to talk through with you a question that every speak about privacy. People say what is the harm . Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Why should i care . The great virtue of this book is that you enumerate those times with great specificity and give a specific examples of people who were harmed in different ways. Lets start with government surveillance. You talk a lot about edwards noted in the Pleasant Program and the metadata and the telephone numbers as well as intercepting the content of the conversations. I am not a terrorist, why should i care . Usually i get it. It was a pleasure to ask the question. I must be a terrorist or something. Thats right, exactly. Its interesting first of all we even have the conversation because it is worth noting that privacy is considered a human right in the thick event. You dont have to have this conversation. Putting that aside, they want to debate the cause, so lets debate it. The biggest time from government surveillance actually is a need for us to be less free with our speech. So i read about this guy in my book who was surveilled at the fbi. He and his friend, they are both teenage young men and santa clara and his friend has this sassy post on his social network and he basically said i dont know why the tsa is so crazy and airport. I could just go to a mall and bomb it no problem, which is actually true, but may be unwise to say, but he said it. A couple weeks later, this guy and his friend were at the car shop getting an oil change and the author, theres something under his car, tracking device. The fbi had put this on his car to surveilled head and later found out it was because of his friends comment. So this is already a disturbing story. But as some disturbing is that happen afterwards. After they found out they were surveilled by the fbi, the friendship fell apart. The youngster didnt want to be friends with the guy who might put them in danger. He became incredibly circumspect in his actions and didnt feel free to talk about anything subversive. He is Muslim American and he now uses a different name, aladdin, because its less knobs on. He studied teen every time he comes across national borders. He doesnt feel that he has the same free speech rights that is a central part of our country. You argue so powerfully in a chapter that its not just privacy, that free speech and a quarter was enough practical obscurity to engage in political dissent and as you say, Supreme Court has not been sympathetic to claims that violates free speech. Now come the Supreme Court has not. Theres a number reasons why weve taken up half. Largely over the issue of standing, which is you cant prove your surveilled and cant show any harm. We have an interesting case coming out, which is now after snowden, people can prove they were surveilled. One day when i talked about in that chapter, i call it freedom of association, even whether speech is concerned about association because he was afraid to associate with his friend anymore. Opaque data is is way to build associations. People say that they may love about it is the people who buy file paths to put under their furniture figure credit risks. It was too small and so it builds associations. But we do have a history of protecting freedom of association. The naacp versus alabama were alabama wanted to list members and the Supreme Court upheld the right to keep that list private. The thing is those lists are no longer private because you dont have to join the young muslim men anymore. He was automatically entered into that by the digital trail he left behind. In addition to the great First Amendment concerns, you also identify Fourth Amendment concerns in europe to former east germany and found out what the saudi new about its status and, how much more or less this sassy know then google knows about you . Well, there were a couple of people who had dozens of binders. So some people had like 30 binders, 50 binders. The average file, which were 20 to 50 pages long, handwritten and baylor not as robust as web is a typical facebook profile event. Nowadays they do quite a bit of someone. Also to say they didnt know how to be repressive. Viewers want to be cautious with this, which is we are better surveillance, but not as good as refreshing. But to make sure we keep it that way. Does that work . You tell the story of zazi, who was one of the people the government has offered as an example of caught through this prison surveillance. And yet its not clear the surveillance is up with the cause and he might not have been caught without it. Yes, the zazi case is the one the government uses most often to defend the nsa surveillance programs ever since the snowden revelation. Its obvious the guy who wanted to blow up the subways in new york city. They did identify him because he had written an email to somebody overseas and they did cut back through the prison program. The thing is you dont need the Bulk Surveillance Program to monitor communications to known terrorist. We have a process called monitor communications of terrorists. But basically they caught him by literally chasing him across the country and cars. He was driving denver to new york and they had a team of agents trailing him. It was incredibly oldschool. Now, the gps device that yasser was followed by was a surge the Supreme Court struck down and said youre not a lets put a gps device on the bottom of the car to track peoples movements 24 7 for a month. What about the future of Fourth Amendment issues . You talk about fascinating elfin tracking issues. His current me out then and they could no longer put a gps device on the bottom of my car. They can subpoena the geolocation information stored by at t and verizon or whatever it is and some folks in Congress Needed a warrant warrant for that . The government is pushing that . What will the courts to . The problem we have with these devices as they are the best tracking device ever devised. And a spy would love their target to carry such a thing. The problem is the fourth banana, the way the court has interpreted it has been very much about the boundaries of your actual home. So the papers in your home, the interpretation has been if you give your information to somebody outside the home, such as the phone company or bank, you have a lesser expectation of privacy in those records. So that allows the government to get yourself on record with less of a Legal Standard. That is known as the Third Party Doctrine. In the jones case the reference, justice sao tome are suggested it might be time to reconsider that in a world where we basically store all of our papers, but that hasnt yet been opened up by a quarter. Is a question im only asking because i dont have the answer in a major city and it. What is the best alternative . In other words, we have a problem. Over the Supreme Court is that if i take data is stored in a database held by third parties, have no expectation of privacy. That means some of us have any privacy. She didnt say what the court would do as an alternative. I am not that i know the answer, but i think its worth asking that all the tests companies from at t to google to facebook are lobbying to get that particular part of the law changed. They want the search warrant should be the standard for supplementation record, email, sent a data that currently because of the Third Party Doctrine is easier for the government to get. As you say, congress could pass a bill saying you need a warrant to get access to the provision . Yes, it would. Im just going to throw it out there so maybe you can push it as well. I loved your First Amendment argument so much. Never have a hard privacy question i ask what would brandes do because hes my privacy hero. I think he wouldve insisted the framers of the degree of practical obscurity and anonymity and forms of ubiquitous tracking that defeat the expectation are unreasonable searches of our persons and electronic effects. What do you think of that . Guest i heard an argument that i thought was interesting, which is mainly the Second Amendment should protect us. The right to bear countersurveillance. I thought it is actually a great idea. Ive kind of armed myself with countersurveillance. That puts me on a suspicious list actually. But it may well be a level of anonymity needed for political discourse that would be allowed by the fact they had my phone to prevent all signals to getting through. This is the hottest accessory. Advocacy this is basically some thin metal in the model prevents signals getting in. So when my son is in the back, its not communicating within a network. Its really off the grid. It saves me from having to cons to me they okay, how they got my location setting nonor whatever . Is worth pointing out that you could turn your phone off to do this, but the cia, chief technical officer went public a year ago saying you know we contract you even when your phone is off, which basically probably means remotely activating the microphone or some other part of it. True privacy paranoia and this is something that protesters do because the cops went to note is that the protests and so effectually commonly used by occupying other people. This is the time to use the woody allen line. Just because youre paranoid, doesnt mean youre out to get you. A more stylish alternative to your original approach. [laughter] i was talking to this guy who is an excia then. He was that you dont need this. Wrap your phone in tinfoil. I said okay, try a precise than a day wrapping my phone in tinfoil and it was really embarrassing. Its an appealing about them, try not to tear it. By the end of the day it looks like a very crinkly sandwich, special. My colleague said to me, julio, i know someone who can get you a bag you do have to start doing this because you look crazy. You can get them on amazon. The sun i got from a guy who does countersurveillance are in new york. We could set up a little operation of the Constitutional Center and saw them together. A little franchise. Thats a great idea. Now, obviously im king of curious. Based on our conversation, who had the idea would die one . Who thinks this is just too much and would not buy a . Said this is actually almost two thirds. It is a hard humanity committed Constitution Center today. So again, the great virtue of this book, stories, practical tips about how to protect privacy, but we talked about the harms of government surveillance. Let us talk about the harms of privatesector surveillance and being tracked by online companies. I mention the great contribution of your wall street Journal Articles was to reveal that people may be charged different prices online based on who the Companies Think they are. Tell us about that example is differential pricing. Whats happening now when you were online is your computer turned misinformation about you than you think. You imagine yourself being anonymous. When you arrive at a website, they are to have quite a bit of information about you and they can dynamically change the page to tailor exactly to you. This is marketed to u. S. Personalization. Sometimes it is an amazon tells you what books you might want, im what not. Although the only books they ever tell me our nsa [inaudible] parity have them all. But what i wanted to find out at the journal is how is this theme is to provide different prices as that is what i think is ultimately what i would want to do if i was a retailer. We did find in 2010 the capital one is using this information to change the credit card. Theyve never seen them before and was like he was the for you. You analyze the traffic admits that instant analysis echoing to come the income. And how much education they thought you had appeared lets be fair. You can use any credit card you want. Its just been scoped as to what we think you might want. But then in 2012, what we find in staples was actually changing his prices for everybody and it wasnt optional. As soon as the identifier physical location, but macinnis and assessment of how close you are to a competitor store and if you are close enough, they would give you a better price because i thought maybe you might go to the competitors. And so, you could buy an actual stapler. We buy to use a place from two different locations for two different prices and had them shipped to the same location. This is going to becoming more of for popular. What im concerned about is what does that mean because of course its perfectly competitive and legal to do discrimination by price and economists argue that sometimes the perfect racing, but its also true and we look at the data first tables nationwide Company People who live near competitor stores are lower income and racial minorities and make it the higher price is living further away from a competitor stores. So we may need to think what is redlining. What to be considered fair in our system . The ability to be unfair as going to increase technologically. I just raised the question of where do we want to draw the line of the society of how willing we are for people to be charged different prices quiet this is serious literal classification. You were put in one category but nielsen or someone that you a hightech spinner some rain. And then there are the others who are the bluecollar blues, many minorities charged different prices because of who nielsen takes a art. Should that be illegal . That is to question the need to confront. I dont think society has ever had to answer the question. We have technical credit and loan applications and racial minorities. We need to think a little bigger about where else we want to draw those lines because the thing about our Digital World is although it seems like when you go on the internet you can see anything of the whole world, its also true you can be tracked and what i call a halt with yours, where all you see is what other websites think you are and think you want to see and think the price you should have. Talk more about this hall of mirrors. It is so powerfully the example of people in the last election who visited me at romneys website only getting wrong as some people visit the obama website and describe how bitterly you visit the romney website in a cookie placed on your computer is auctioned off in realtime to a company that earns the right to send you besides forever and the result is we are living in a filter bubble away the out to see and even as you consume an entire reality is defined by who the websites think they are. Talk about that filter. In the last election i found this incredible example of the filter bubble, which was if he went to google and type in obama, then your subsequent searches, would have done so had ever at the time. Whatever the topic ways. Obamas position on tax. And many did the same for romney, then your Subsequent Research results didnt have that. And so, i tested this across the country and i came to google within about a week before the election. I said what he is doing . Whats happening here if we at the wall street journal said we notice you at the obama store the front page, so now the front page about to face one of obamas views on toothpaste. So whats the deal . Its just algorithms. Algorithms found people who read obama news want more obama news. That might actually be true because obama one, probably didnt. Is it fair for google to make that assumption for this . Is a can to stop a democratic use . Any live in a society in which we only hear one side of the story . Thats the challenge. Thats what i thought is the key issue here was fairness. It doesnt make you feel like you live in a fair society if youre not being your news presented fairly. I think we need to figure out ways to make sure we can keep all besides the technology, which i love. I want all of it. I want to be able to log on remotely premiering get my files from here. It is right now completely legal and ubiquitous. More fairness, Virtual Police lineups. Its going to happen our . I talk a little bit in my book, about essentially the idea that before all the surveillance was really ubiquitous, there was no reason that a normal person would have to file with their local Police Department would be an file anywhere. Now for instance, local Police Department have legislative leaders. They drive around and scan all the license plates driving by and keep them in a file forever some cases. That means they have a history of your location, where he spent part for the last three years. They also take pictures of where youre driving on the street. The oncoming traffic in front and behind. So what we found was the kind california who thought the freedom of information act request for is automatically quebecers in his town with more than 200 times including his kid in the drive way. Theyre going to keep it forever. So this has changed the perception of an end to my mind, which is no longer do you have to be a suspect to be surveilled. I think the challenge their is than the police can go fishing to get out of the car theres so many long limits you dont know. Who knows. So now they have a way to find dumping on everybody. The bottom of the car to stop without making a signal. All of a sudden violate traffic laws and the Supreme Court has said even if its a pretext, to stop is okay if you violate minor loss and youre saying about this data we are vulnerable. A guy who i think is a really compelling example of this. Hes a boiler repair maine and massachusetts and he basically when they got a notice in the mail that is trevors license had been suspended and he didnt know why. They said you have to come to a hearing. He went there and they said we had this facial Recognition Program and found your photo looks similar to the other guy with Identity Theft to prove who you are. He was presumed guilty and had to prove his innocence. Their program at the wrong people may choose him. They said you dont even look like your photo. He was like yes and i was 13 years ago when im 100 pounds heavier now. So this is the debate hes having with the dmv. Thats what happens in this world where the algorithms are unchecked. He needed the right to be informed earlier. Digital due process is a very powerful thing. You, in order to dramatize the difficulty of protecting privacy spend a year doing a privacy audit on yourself, and protect your own privacy. Ill stop about the other rigorous peer one of the masterminds of which is the last group on what to a website called duck duck out. What was that like . I quit using Google Search and i didnt want them stored. They are still storing them based on your i. T. Address, which is a level of anonymity that in my case if you go to a website, and basically locate me. So there can be very revealing. So i decided to switch to a Search Engine that is based here in philadelphia called to, do, go. They dont store any ip addresses or searches. Every time i go it is like a freshman experience. So it actually took me a while to learn how to use it because there is used to the fact that google would finish my sentences. They are to know what you want and they fill it in for you. With a realized it wasnt that hard to that the word new york at the end of the search command is to make sure wasnt the Natural History museum in london and, i really started to appreciate the fact that my searches were tailored because i have to control myself over what i was q4. You have many useful tips about creating secure passwords. I thought my god, ill never be able to remember than pure luck everyone else nothing of the obvious ones with an exclamation point or something at the end of it. Now i just read about privacy. Whats the take away . The passwords are a terrible situation right now. So i guess what i ended up doing was recently using a password manager because the software would generate passwords. It is impossible for anyone to smuggle these passwords themselves. I had my daughter tuesday special technique where she took worth as a dictionary strongman scifi print dictionary words and i use it for my email and my password manager. Ask them to say one thing about passwords, if you do want and, please change your email password to the longest possible thing and write it down. Admit that you cant write these things down, the likelihood someone will break into your house, get your wallet and figure out a piece of paper and realize that is your channel password. Take along what you can remember back supercalifragilisticexpialidocio us . The password hackers are designed for each password. The longer the better. It is a wellknown phrase, theyre more likely to get it. Thats way to bring aboard in the dictionary because those programs are not likely to guess random words. I would also point out we have a good ability to create random words, but theyre not at random. It is better to try to come up with a way to find with a random words. Just for those who are not privacy paradise, why is this important . Why should people take the trouble . The password is actually really important, even if you dont believe a single thing ive been saying about privacy come you dont want to be hacked. Its just really important, particularly your email account used to reset a password. So criminal hacking games are basically very expert at breaking passwords. Even if you dont believe, change your passwords. Which are taken off the steps if you havent been writing a book and will you continue to use these technologies . Was whats interesting is i they definitely started this as an exercise see if i could do it and educate nice of you investigate how hard it was to protect my privacy. What i found is that is sort of like becoming a vegan, its a way of life. Everyday i have to wake up and choose not to use that passwords and put my phone in the back and choose to not give my real name to the teresa. Everything. So it has become a way of living. It is a pain to be honest. I really actually think its important for myself, for my kids. I taught them mixtec exhibit will wander into the Digital World building along trail that will always be with them. I think it is worth doing. Some of it is impossible. Even i had made this is not a good solution. In fact, the reason i do this is to show me doing it another way to block trafficking rather than technological means. We should get to questions because theres a lot of them. So lets jump right in. Why is the average person so unconcerned about privacy rights . We all seems so willing to give up. Is because we dont know the true cost of it. We are getting all these trees are this is. Everyone loves free, right . But we are now waking up 10, 20 years to the internet revolution is they werent really free. We are paid with personal data. Now we dont know how much its worth. We just dont have a way to classify it. We cant tell how it will be used against us in the future. We can only speculate. It is personally rational to be conceived about whether you should care because its like the market you dont know what the prices are and its only the true experts who can really evaluate the prices. Google claims it never shares a persons purchaser if anyone else. True quick yes, google says it. Theres so much data themselves the day dont want to share it. They keep it for themselves today by other data from the data brokers to enhance that they have the best profiles out there. The problem with that is the government is always the google story. Weve seen it, the secret requests for data. We also saw this hack into googles data center when they couldnt get it through the front door. So i like google. I would like to trust them at making it. I dont know if they can defend themselves against the nsa. Service a great way to. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to search my home, wise and they werent required for the nsa to search any computer in my home . Is because of the thirdparty dock turn. Basically if they go into your house and take your computer, they still need a warrant. Its so easy to get the information from your computer. Theres many ways to circumvent the requirement. You talk in the book about the case from california with finance or pitches last year said computer searches, even if theyre at the border arrests at the home can potentially reveal so much that they have to be minimized and police should only be looked to look for specified bits of information and not use anything in plain view. Make that go anywhere yeah, i was the first time we had been any sort of limits. Right now it happens the wiki lakes volunteer, and he basically knew was coming. They took him aside, took his computer, copy the entire contents and then let them go on because they didnt have to get a warrant because theres an exception of the border. So its been a tool they have used to find information from people who they want to track, but dont want to get a warm four. I was a great moment that maybe they will be of Legal Standard required only in one circuit. You invoke a general wants to spark the american revolution. John adams and the other framers so concerned about these pieces of paper that allow the king agents to search anyones house to search for seditious material or other evidence of people not paying taxes that they fought the revolution because of it. Its nsa surveillance at a general warrant or because it is just metadata that is the telephone numbers rather than the content isnt not like a general warrant . I dont see how you could look at the collection of every single phone calling records for the past seven years with anything other than a general warrant. Its the hugest database and connections and associations. That is that the nsa was doing with the program. Now they say that they didnt actually collected. It was just sitting there and they collectively may do a search in that data. I think that is a legal technicality that needs to be sorted out by the court and maybe they are right, but it just doesnt make us. If its city mayor and never touched, maybe we are okay with that. What is the level of oversight and make sure somebody is getting it. Right now were in a world where theres no data that is safe. A lot of files he was opposed to have. Its hard for me to trust assurances that no one is looking at this other than these two searches. Just be consistent with the nonpartisan mandate, though the records theres blood on this question. One judge in Leon Washington says James Madison wouldve been appalled by the surveillance program. I wouldve been aghast about the slow incursions of liberty. Another judge in new york said because of the thirdparty doctrine, we dont have expectations of privacy. Justice kalina has said he expects the Supreme Court to you this complaint. Next question. If i try to hide my personal permission from the nsa, what then encourage them to do more surveillance about me . Yes, it will. So we found in some of the early documents that by using encryption, which is something i use as much as i can, putting the messages into secret codes that can be read at a government or hopefully will be really hard to read itasca but we dont know yet whether theyve broken them entirely. It puts you on a suspicious list and allows you to store your data bonder and keep it for analysis. So i recognized early on in my project to protect my privacy that any of the things i was doing are likely to raise red flags. I did it as a way of protest in some sense because i think that is unfair. Just because i want to have a conversation in a separate by someone else, i dont think you should put me on a list and i that assumption. I went in knowing that it might raise suspicions not yet obtained at the border, but expect that to happen any time and we have to think about whether thats the race and there. Is that what we want them to do . May be. The secondary patdown 13, but theyre more trouble so far. And onto the body scanner because they have not data. They dont need my picture, too. I was the one victory for privacy in this whole tale. The government initially had these choices to the two scanners, the machine. One shows you naked as a bloc, which for most of us is a mac to courtesy. It are great political protest from a guy who a few years ago said dont touch my job. He went back to the joint board and present obama was shocked to see you could make the law machines. Still not blogging. I just dont like as a matter print to pull. There so few opportunities to go, i want this to be metrics. Everyone says no one cares about privacy. As the denver airport. 95 of people are into the body scanner. Timi 5 . I want there to be numbers because they dont present it to u. S. An optin. And someone is a lot of what im doing here is calling the situation. I am choosing. Who else would optout of the body scanners . Is a very proprivacy crowd. Isnt google a hypocrite for complaining about the nsa when google is more invasive . Well, google is still not putting anyone in jail. So i think that google has a right to be upset. When they found out data centers were hacked into by the government, after that microsoft came out with the incredible statement. They said we now consider the government come in the u. S. Government should be our thread. Previously it had been chinese hackers. They were basically at the top of our hacking concerns. And so, these companies arent difficult position, which they are in the u. S. And i think they seem to be legitimately outraged that there was a lot of covert stuff going around. They were complying on the front end, but they were unaware the stuff is going on the backend. Is the current Supreme Court understand enough about technology to make an effective privacy ruling cliques just his head again has had she remembers playing pawns as a kid. [laughter] there is this great moment where chief Justice Roberts that week, he may make a track my car with the gps . So i think theyre starting to wake up to this yet how can you live in todays world do not be aware this thing is transmitting information . They are reading briefs, understanding tax messaging. You have to be really tech savvy are basically principles are broad enough you can understand without getting into the weeds . The level of tech literacy in this country i think should increase. People are still little bit too confused about the level of tracking that happens behind the scenes on websites. But theres been so much press about it they dont have to be you have to be living under a rock, which is maybe where this is located. The johns decision was 190. I surprised a lot of people. Not a single justice accepted a position with no expectation of privacy in public. Right. Id love to point out that theyre destined to be an Incredible Movement across the country against drones. So i think we are coming to the conclusion that when we are are tracking to her car doesnt mean weve given up. The privacy people have to be related to their allies . We can imagine what it would be like to be followed a strong . Isbister bulleting. These are completely great questions. Is the nsa effort to get privacy education about reporters . I wish i knew that. I mean, the evidence is unfortunately lame stories the answer being asked because there was Inspector General a few years back about the fbis use of National Security letters targeting journalists in obtaining secretly information about the phone call records. We have seen in the jim rice in case the more this is a New York Times reporter who said his phone records were obtained for you the case. I think we have to say reporters are probably in a very difficult situation right now. Six to prosecutions under the espionage act with other administrations combined, including question about whether or not publishers themselves could be charged. Yeah, you know if you dont care about privacy, thats fine, but its also worth thinking about the challenge to journalists as an issue because journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs of democracy. If we cannot have any contact with our source confidentially because we can only rely on sources willing to basically move to rush and give it their entire lives like edward snowden, will not have as much of an ability. I think thats a question for a society to grapple with. Have there been many or any legal cases were online browsing data against job applicants . Im not sure if there have been explicitly. One of the problems with the information is often times if you are denied a job, you would know why. Its pretty difficult for an employer i would imagine to get them and in most cases. Based on First Amendment issues and surveillance concerns, why should we discussed this issue on twitter but the Constitution Center . Is great. [laughter] thats a good question. People ask me all the time i am on twitter because i quit facebook and linked in. I left a little pitch here that so start your says im not here, im on twitter. I think that twitter is a little more clear that its issues and his public rock cats. Is that publishing in the newspaper to me. I put on their exactly what i would write for consumption of the whole world. But i dont like about facebook and linked in is your associations, your contacts are basically public. We all think we are credibly unique, exactly basically like to see movies and music and have the same local police as many of her friends. It can be very revealing. Twitter and facebook and google have different standards. Twitter is the most speech protected and will only take down speech that patents and is intended to provoke action. They basically adopted the u. S. First amendment standard for space that has standards that allow more speech to be surprised over a religious group, for example, although not a religious leader. They be people should inform themselves about the different standards. Incredibly aggressive on defending its users rights for speech. On that point, we live in a world where google and facebook have more power who can be heard in his private bed and a camera president or support justice in the first and Fourth Amendments apply only to the government and not google. We need a constitutional amendment to protect free speech against google and facebook and privacy in the digital age . Wow, that is an interesting question. I do think that we have to sort of evaluate when you go onto facebook and google, we think of ourselves sometimes this began a Public Square at townhall. In a way we are kind of in a totalitarian dictatorship, wherever they decided to go for speech. We have to think about pursue my decision as lets not had to speech they are. And so have opted out to a different way, but you could also force them to try to have freespeech standards. There are Telecom Companies having to abide by some standards for the First Amendment. So that is a possibility. We unfortunately designed. I could continue this all afternoon. You had your book are talking about reforms. Youre skeptical about the content, because you think people might exchange their privacy for a toaster and once they fell three quarters said they might not get that. Do you like transparency as Louis Brandeis said emulate the fair credit reporting act which tells people how much is collected and unified questions that should be asked of every digital dragnet to decide whether or not a fair or even legal. Shall i read that i asked does the dragnet provide individuals with legal rights to access correct to any speed data rates for dragnet too intrusive for its purpose . Does it benefit society . Does it fall into other prejudice and cant withstand public scrutiny . Beach at the time of the framing of the Fourth Amendment wouldve asked to tell us more about these principles and how optimistic they are about being adopted. I wish i was more optimistic. I feel like im sort of asking for not that much. I just feel that i wouldnt mind trading my data for services if i could have some assurances that it was used against me i would have some way i could challenge the data, but i could see it, but i can sue over it and he was being used in public benefit. It wasnt just against me. So obviously i came up with these standards is mailed to about what would i want in order to trade my data and feel confident because i feel like we are in an information economy. Although i try to optout, its not actually practical. But i would rather do is participate freely and have some assurances that it wont be harmed. Cars are dangerous but we get them every day because we have assurance of Safety Measures have been taken away have redress if something goes wrong. On a similar standard for treatment of my data. Wonderful. Ladies and gentlemen of cspan audience, please can result downstairs and by julius wonderful book on cspan. Go to amazon using an anonymous browser in either book. Come to the Constitution Center. Org. Please join me in thanking julia angwin