Have with a stelar panel of experts with the first points of view on the topic, thank you to our panelists for being with us today. In the interest of time will keep our guest bios brief will find out more about themht onli, right project. Org. A partner in the law firm of johnson in washington d. C. And law practice covers cybersecurity and Data Protection, Homeland Security, travel and foreign investment. N Panel Experts with a view on this topic. Thank you to panelist for being with us today. Interest of your time, i will keep guest bios brief but find out more about the right project for. That is right project. Org. Baker is washington, d. C. His a book on terrorism, cybersecurity and other Technology Issues and house podcasts, cyber law podcast. Distinguish professor of law at the university of arizona, James E Rogers college of law, a professor teaches and studies fundamental problems of well intended technologyy policies in her Research Discusses the social cost and benefit data and new Information Technologies affect free speech, privacy and competitive markets. 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. This would include location data everyones cell phone provider collects and also your gps app and whatnot. Also Google Search data, search terms that are going to be indicating whether a person was then a lot ofd reporting on these acts that collect information about a womans menstrual cycle and ask wind up with data off the device into the crowd, there are concerns about that but also how the data might be used in combination with other types of data to determine a woman in a particular state where abortion is illegal vista. Our a woman has become pradip pertinent and later location data suggest they sought an abortion. All of these data sources are useful for criminals and in many ouways the debate is one happeng for well over a decade now but its also true some crimes are more amenable detected and tracked in this highly technological datadriven weight than others so maybe seeking an abortion given inevitable location changing nature of that where a woman has to go someplace that might eventually be identified for abortions provided in state there were a while, itul might have a particular fingerprint others dont have so it may be more likely these types of crimes, if they become crimes make use of the data. Most of the data are one content data including location data at least might be available to Law Enforcement using a subpoena, so without this. Of course the carpenter decision recently announced the u. S. Supreme court changes that somewhat and put some of the questions which we can talk about later. In response, some Companies Including google, have taken action, google has promised it will delete data, automatic that is related to location, tracking when a person visits a medical clinic. Is whether theres really an appetite yet for criminalizing and prosecuting women in particular for seeking abortions. I would have said maybe four years ago i would have said even if roe was overturned theres simply not a viable sort of political will to go after or prosecute womenas opposed to abortion providers but i think thats change. The nebraska casesuggests there has been a shift. On the campaign trail when donald trump was running for president he made at the time what seemed like a gap where he asked why wouldnt we prosecute women and everyone understood that even the most sort of prolife and politically active supporters of abortion bands didnt want to place criminal attention on the women themselves but i think that has shifted. So then another issue though was whether the criminal law that either has emerged or will emergent states are going to criminalize only abortions within their own states which would lead to one set of questions about what types of data or whether instead at least 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 privacy questions but interesting criminal law some questions as well whether thats the type of behavior that should even be within the purview of their jurisdiction. Finally im not sure if theres an answer to these questions i think are important and kind of maybe prerequisites for understanding the list of privacy violations. And thats whether states are likely to both and act laws and enforce laws that most of us would find kind of repugnant and contrary to what the criminal system should be used for. In the nebraska case i dont think is actually a great case to hold up for fear mongering because it involves a mother guiding a 17yearold to abort her 23weekold fetus so i think reasonable minds of course ctrun the full gamut in terms of the morality of abortion and when the interests of potential life start to equal or even surpass interests in the sort of you know, bodily and economicfreedom of the mother. But i think we understand that many people think at some point that happens and 23 weeks is a pretty long time so even in europe this would be the typeof abortion in most countries in europe that would be illegal. So i think im interested in whether were likely to see prosecutions of this sort that would make use of this data and if so, how carefully to refine any data privacy we might want to take. Thats a great introduction. Before we go to the substance just a quick kick with stuart or danielle, do any of you have any other broadly speaking use Case Scenarios you think ought to be in the pot for consideration as potential avenues for data usage in criminalprosecutions related to abortion, stewart . I think that is way over full with use cases already so i have no more to add. Danielle. Yeah, because there are cases i could make. From your Abortion Clinics as a potential way of power dumps for those who dont know are basically polling location data from a cell phone tower near a location where a client would be used for example in a bank robbery possibly and one could imagine you know, the potentiality. Any others, im just trying to set it before we all go talkabout what we think about. I think its important to recognize that Law Enforcement, state federal and local has contracts with data brokers. Data brokers in particular but also data brokers that have 3000 data points on each h and every one of us including g whether we can terminate a pregnancy. The microscopic level of detail and it requires no subpoena or warrants. They have contracts on going right now so i think the idea that were going to in all cases have sort of interesting for amendment questions hafor the thirdparty doctrine and i hope of course we come back and start rethinking how the interplay stays within carpenter. Its just the reservoir for information are overflowing and easily accessible to Law Enforcement. Did we just lose danielle . I believe so, i cant hear her. Okay. Well, those are the vagaries ofzoom discussions. So hopefully we will get her back. Perhaps one of the people like don or stephen can try toreach out to her so lets continue the discussion. Danielle, there we go sorry about that. I thought this would be the best place for us to be stable. Lets move on to the substance and let me come back to you danielle while i have you. If i were to kind of broadly characterize levels of concern, my prepanel understanding is that concerns are significantly higher than james and certainly muchhigher than stewards so we will come to you next. Puta little salt on the table. Tell us why youre concerned based on the issues youre he raising. The book which i hope to get a copy of when it comes out and tell us why you think that this intersection is particularly troubling. So my work focuses on intimate privacy, thats the privacy around and information about our bodies, our health, our closest relationships, our sexuality, Sexual Orientation or sexual activities and our innermost thoughts which we document course with our Google Searches and all of our communications o. By my life intimate privacy is a foundational value that deserves partial protection. But in her privacy is the precondition for human flourishing. It enables us to figure out who we are, to develop our authentic selves and thats with people. Thats not to say its alone but with trusted others. It enables us to enjoy selfrespect and social respect so that we are seen as old people rather than just our pajamas for the fact that we have how likelihood of developing typeii diabetes. We can be seen as whole , fully integrated people and charles friede said it best. Privacy is the precondition. Its the oxygen for love. Thats how we get to know each other is that we reveal things to one another we wouldnt reveal to other people. Shared and reciprocal vulnerability allows love to have been so because in so many ways individuals, government and local perspectives, we are closing disclosing hand over this information about our lives willfully without protecting it in ways that i think have long stream, downstream effects we can wrap our heads around. That have to do with discrimination, ranking peoples jobs youdont get, insurance premiums that go up that you dont realize and this is especially true for women and minorities. So to go back to james discussion about your skepticism about the political will. Haim just going to drop michelle goodwins book on inpolicing the black body that over the last nine years weve seen 400 prosecutions of black women and girls during pregnancies and havent either taken with drugs during pregnancy so using Fetal Homicide Laws that were really not meant for that. Someone kills a mother and baby, right so i do thinkwere going to see ripples. Prosecutions that may not affect the sort of more privileged folks but i think we are going to see unfortunately, i guess im worried about the political will. Even in my own state at the moment about the kind of prosecutions. We might see rates depending on the rollout of these states criminal laws so we see companies as the handmaidens of government and individuals to. Individuals you got someone angry at a lover. Tells someone might i think my next had an abortion. I have spyware on her phones and this is exactly what shes doing. And this opens the door to the surveillance of intimate life that we can close it. Weve been working with folks on the american Data Protection and Privacy Protection act and my body my health. Theres various eninnovations happening on the hill, we will see what happens but we need special protection for intimate information. So its so essential to afigure out who we are that i hope that we see development on the hill. I hope that was helpful. Give me more specifics. Youre obviously concerned about the growth of a prosecution potentiality. Thats kind of i mean, thats a political haquestion that is not really tied directly to the dataissue. Let me ask you this question. Are your data concerns about abortion unique to abortion or do you see the same concerns about the whole panoply of intimacy privacy that you define whether its transgender is him, marriage. Sexual orientation. Whatever. Ha totally. And its interesting and youre so right. I cant dictate what state legislatures are going to do and its your judgment and assessment thats going to be criminal law with a warrant you would think thisis perfectly appropriate. So the Supreme Court said theres no constitutional right to seen in state constitutions. Theres no right to privacy or right to bodily autonomy that they still recognize in the 14th amendment. So but my, i wrote my book and im working on it. He was going to be an interesting point im sure. My concerns remain. All the way are we back . Repeat the lasts im sorry. I wrote my book for the leak of the draft so myconcerns let me give you a few examples and i think they would help us wrap our heads around why i care about it. So when individuals deprive each other of intimate privacy its often private women and girls andchildren of their privacy. And when i mean by that is there are 9500 sites right now, many of them hosted in the United States that talk intimate images of people having sex so intimate images of nude or sexually explicit photos. And its not always an accurate, could be an deep fake sex video. And when that is accompanied by your name and home address , its not only devastating for you personally because its the fear just of whos going to come approach you. It changes your sense of safety, youre constantly on guard but it changes your economic opportunities. Children have lost their jobs because their names include defense of pornography. Parochial School Students as well as High School Principals and so its nurses, its every type of person unfortunately can be tormented. We just comprehensive approach to privacy and pro e bono lowcost counsel. There are laws on the books in the unfortunately stay on the books. So we have some cchallenges. Its surprising when it comes to companies, lets just take wagner for example. Grinder was encouraging people. Its a date updating act,a hook up for gay men. And by transmitting so the app was encouraging people to and doctors were thrilled to sort of share their hiv status because then you could have open and clear conversations about protection. Its like safer sex this way. The wall street journal broke the story that grinder was shelling, sharing that information including hiv status of third parties and a full fallout was for a lot of people im not sharing this information anymore. Imfirst of all i know its open to discrimination , i worry and so what could be so pro social and helpful is sharing of intimate information that enables, people are just going to be killed and they were chilled. I want to give you examples of how we see intimate odyssey is crucial to our selfdevelopment and love and sex, not just love but all the ways we connect with one another. So we will woefully under protect that information cause its like i noticed we told you so. In ourprivacy clause. We need to do better. So stuart, if i could characterize fairly diane daniel its that you know, there is no intimate privacy in other areas of no privacy about intimateissues and other areas of the law and though we havent seen a lot of it , a lot of it repurposed in the abortion area theres no reason to think that it wants give if its the state criminalizes it that that is the ground. I know, im sure that you are skeptical of the need for that concern and you think this is i wont say a tempest in a teapot but of less significance than danielle or perhaps even jane being positive, tell us why. So let me start with what i thought we were going to be talking about and its moved to this other. And i will say youre accurately summarize my views on this re and when talking about going back that the going back to the government the only job i would take is privacy skeptic. And if since there is no such job ill have to do it myself. The thing i was struck by was the rush to turn dobbs into our privacy issue. And the complete lack of any basis for doing that. Its bizarre. People said well, they will attack you to an Abortion Clinic and then youll be in trouble. L but of course as weve said already a lot of the focus of these regulatory things is on the clinics. Its illegal to provide an abortion in your state. There is going to be a location that you can be checked to and so the whole notion that youre going to be tracked to a place where its clear youre committing a crime is i think completely without merit so then people s say what if you go to an outofstate clinic. You can track the outofstate clinic. And i think the problem with that is itassumes all kinds of things. It assumes state legislatures are going to be so enthusiastic about expanding abortion prohibitions that they will try to expand them to behavior of theiroucitizens in other states. There isnt any sign that thats happening so the idea that you can track and other states clinic and criminalize for that is without foundation. And there were five votes as i counted them in the dobbs thats a itself state cant do that. Thatwould be a violation of the right to travel or what have you. One, we dont see the loss. Two, we dont see the likelihood those laws and third, the appetite for criminalizing behavior of women seeking abortions is really, really limited. There have been prosecutions of women who have gotten illegal abortionsprior to dobbs. Either because they abused their fetuses with drug habits for in the nebraska case we saw three of these in a year because they got a very late abortion and in did as a woman in the nebraska case did bury the fetus, put it in a plastic bag so they were sure that fetus might not have died in thebag and dug it up again ,burned the body. There are a lot of violations in law there that have nothing to do with abortion that are typically inused to prosecute those kinds of things but location data is not really going to be relevant in as far as i can see any prosecution. So were at the point where there is no point talking about the way in which geolocation data is going to make you susceptible to prosecution after dobbs. And what we started to see is appended to yes, but privacy privacy is important and it can be intruded upon by ordinary criminals evidence gathering. That we can use our electronic information and since were talking about privacy in dobbs lets talk about why we need a big privacy bill that takes us to intimate privacy question. And i havent thought deeply about privacy but it does seem to me that we have a real definitional problem here. I want to reveal my hiv status to the people im trying to have sex with so imvolunteering that information. Do i want to that information used to tellme about a new hiv treatment that is now commerciallyavailable . Probably. Do i want it told to somebody whos going to use it to me in my capacity as patients, number but the idea of defining that by just saying its in the privacy so therefore we solve the problem strikes me as only opening a pandoras box, not actually selecting things we dont like that were trying to address. So yes, you can certainly imagine privacy abuses that we ought to address. I suspect that were better off asking what acare the harms were trying to stop and what are the good things we will prevent by stopping those very broadbased way. And all those are methe same questions weve been wrestling with for 20 years on the question of how should we regulate privacy and its true the eu said well will just make a human right and talk about defining it later. I think we are getting close to that with the label of intimate privacy, lets make it a human right and then will worry about it later. I think were getting off better off asking what are we trying to do and how would we regulate its in a way that will achieve our results without doing g damage to the people that we care about. Stuart, let me call up but it strikes me from this first set of rounds here that i had maybe expected in this discussion to address the privacy implications of dobbs kind of abstractive from other intimate privacy problems. But it seems to me that the consensus in this group is that there really is no difference in the Legal Framework here type format from between privacy relating to grinder and disclosure of hiv status and tin the privacy relating to abortion status. So let me, so assuming thats a fair characterization and maybe youll say no assuming thats a fair characterization for everybody, is your lack of concern then based on your predictive judgment that the criminalization of abortion of women for having an abortion is just radically unlikely to be become commonplace . I think if it does become commonplace its going to work on this battle again. But it seems like a very weird thing for everybody to be talking about and not talking about what limits are appropriate on abortion. And instead talking about what we ought to do about protecting data and its a very unfortunate focus this panic about the location data because look, google has said were not going to collect information on Abortion Clinics so if somebody goes to an Abortion Clinic and assassinates somebody was providing abortions were not going to have the usual information we would have about who did it because google will have destroyed the data about it to the clinic. I think its not serving any purpose to protect women but its has all kinds of unfortunate secondary consequences. Let me circle around and come to you james and ask you first you share stuarts predictive judgment and second, is that relevant to the data privatization youre talking about at all or should we treat it as an abstract issue or not abstract but a real legal issue. Im going to try to square the circle because i think the reason i dont totally share georges prediction. I think like him i think its unlikely that a lot of states are going to not only lput a criminal statute on the books but also vigorously enforce it, however, i am suffering on that prediction. There are ndpowerful political minorities that are really kind of running the show in at least bsthe Republican Party that might want that sort of law. Want to see active enforcement. But so i think data privacy, the data privacy question is related to the options of criminal law questions but not in the way that ive heard it said so far so let me try to do it. Any growing anxiety about the amount and detailed nature of the data that is currently available with some level maybe lowlevel of process from 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. Some of the crimes obviously arent premium so when i read people like danielles piece which was excellent but when i read it as using the abortion prosecution as a reason to worry about data privacy i automatically think of all the examples in stuart but youre right. Like, the same data, the exact same data is used for childlyabduction, all these. Intimacy is a source of social welfare but also great threat and crime in general is a real disruption of not only intimacy but autonomyand health and we care a lot about the crimes that are bad. So it raises for me the question i think data privacy should force us to focus not on the collections say of data, theres too many valuable uses for data and that is not going to stop. Its only going to intensify in my opinion. We also probably shouldnt focus unduly on data transfers per se but we need to start thinking about implications of uses and whether that implies that Something Else in our criminal system is actually malfunctioning. Whether were over punishing too many things or whether we need to think about Constitutional Rights related to the amendment and due process limits on what types of criminal laws can be brought up in the first place. Otherwise these are the things or the data that would be used, if danielle gets some of the enforcement she wants for like, criminal violations of harassing women by creating forms of data, the same data is going to be used to track who can do it online at this time. And posted that picture so i think the data privacy problem or rather a policy solution are going to be more tricky than as susan said more tricky than privacy. Let me finish this round here and then we will take you to another topic going to you danielle. And since daniel essentially said its not the collection or transfer thats used for what i sometimes have about as privacy is consequence and that the same data that youre worried about him revealing intimacy might also reveal invasions, inappropriate illegal fertilizations. Do you accept that framing and so are we just talking about implications of leadership or do you think that privacy is a stronger read is the wrong word. Stronger thing that needs to be independently considered . I guess unsurprisingly im going to disagree. I, there is information that our services do not need to process and store. So if youre using a source, they dont need to know at the store details about your sex life, details about your preferences for certain individuals. Your health information. If they dont need to store that information for providingthat , they collected and nation story. The risks, its true. They are long and downstream that often impact women and minorities, gender minorities as well as racial minorities. The information that is ultimately then icsold, shared, resale, repurposed and included in digital dossiers has a huge impact on peoples opportunities including their ability to get a job and to get an interview, their life insurance. There are real consequences in the here and now so i dont think we should collected and it makes the Security Issues less complicated. If we dont have it we dont worry about leaking it. And in the hands of hackers. So i do think that selection should be on the table as part of the conversation of course i might just disagree a bit about the kind of information you need to finda harasser , stalker, intimate privacy and faith invader. Is that intimate information, is information about your health, your body, Sexual Activity , not precisely. It wouldnt be that information so i think its not its easy or that you cant find it. I tried to define it as imprecisely as i cant in my book and what we mean by it. And i dont think that, i think the idea that the moral panic idea that stewart raised, just look to pre1973. Women were self reporting. They were engaging in practices of people that were providing help and getting abortions so you said like this will never happen, there will be never estate in which theres a certain amount of time. We have a huge amount of history that shows us women and girls will seek out the possibility and there are people who will want to provide. So it seems theres a whole lot of harm that has been totally ignored womens living reality and harm. And there are times that i think its not a moral panic that we want to grapple with and its not that dobbs made me think that privacy matters, let me transition to this. Before i do the transition let me say to all of those who are participating online that we have been this for 45 minutes so probably in a few minutes were going to turn to your questions. Drop them in the q a on zoom if you will and i dont know how the people on cspan can ask questions, iapologize for that. Maybe theres a method. So stuart, let me turn to you and ask you this question and i want to just dig down a little deeper. Weve been talking about the privacy and as time even undifferentiated step of technology. Everything from private messages on facebook to location data. And in my hypothetical, geo tower dumps. Do you think that we can or should be able to differentiate between those . Would you for example agree that perhaps private messages on facebook are different than location data or do you see it as all and undifferentiated matter. Of course its different although weirdly i guess i understand danielle and some of the others there treating location dataas intimate data. An when in fact its rarely, sometimes of course its going to be very intimate. But the very same data which i cannot imagine google having four maps i would care a lot if somebody was encouraging a physical attack on me and broadcasting my own address. You cant say that data is intimate. Its the use that as you said its put two that raises questions about whether it should be regulated. So i do think the more we look at particular cases, the more were going to say we cant just say the data needs to be characterized. I remember people used to say the obvious one is health data, what could be more intimate than that . We should treat that is Sensitive Data and then i quite vividly 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 theres just almost no way to separate things from context and treat them as special. To my mind. And then comes the question do you need this data . Surely if theres anything we could say you need the data, you have service that needs the data its location. Everything from maps to finding nearby businesses, etc. Were going to give that up with enthusiasm and if we say you cant use it except to provide the service youre essentially saying using data to serve as is out of bounds. And 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 as and in many cases we are quite enthusiastic about that. We want to know about products and weve been looking for or talking about or using. When we get online. So unless were going to totally transform the internet economy and downgrade large numbers of apps and services, we cant just casually say if you dont need it to provide that service you cant have it. And so again, it seems to me we are courting massive consequences on the basis of anecdotes. Is sort of ran back to Location Services though i was trying to get you to answer at least for me whether or not you think private messages on facebook would maybe be in a different category or which is the nebraska case. Absolutely. I think its, i always thought it was creepy that google wasreading my mail. But theyre not the least based on whats in my email. So sure, the communications, look. In us law they been separated out and given special treatment even as the government searches at least since the 1980s and probably the 60s. We all recognize that those things we can indicate our much more deserving of protection than facts about us. Were starting to get some really good questions in here. Let me ask anybody on the panel the simple factual question , one of the members asked are there states that areactually attempting to pass legislation that would allowfor the department use of women for having an abortion . I suspect either jane or danielle has an answer to that. Neither of you . I thought the answer was yes but i thought oklahoma was considering. If anyone in the q a wants to put on a link to a news item. I think the New York Times has some running media on it has a link of the proposed laws that have been triggered but thats right, there are laws that would apply to women and not just providers. Select a civil penalty about the law. Anyone who helps a woman in the effort or someone whos pregnant, theres civil counties, the bounty was 10,000. So theimplications are sort of broader. And another kind of easy question before i get to a more deep one. Somebody asked and i assume the answer is , yes that everybody on the panel would think that the same sense set of concerns might apply to people who want to go to a Crisis Pregnancy Center which for those who dont know are actually centers intended to encourage those who keep their children and not abort them. It does anybody think that whatever it is we think about this, the answer would be different from Crisis Pregnancy Centers that would be for Abortion Clinics . I dont see the threat of criminal prosecution there but in terms of the data that is at least theoretically as accessible, i dont see it. Thats a fair. But the regulation of those is more aggressive and more punitive regulation of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. But the political valences will be switched and it will be the blue states that are saying we dont want these people to exist to be online, to be able to advertise. We want google to put cautions on their ads. We think theyre misleading people. There really about persuading people not to get abortions and not about helping them get a pregnancy so were going to see efforts to regulate them pretty aggressively i cant believe theyre going to punish people who go to them. I actually do think its useful for a debate about the data privacy especially in protest to actually pull to use cases in your mind that have opposite political valences so maybe Crisis Pregnancy Centers and the one but crossing state lines to go to a gunshot. I like that one. Where guns are illegal. Right. So you want whatever theory of data Privacy Management you have should not be well, we should have privacies and i dont like the law and we shouldnt have it when i do like the criminal law. That is really where most of the privacy debate is. Also that its a human nature issue. I keep us with the Crisis Pregnancy Centers because theyre revealing about decisions about our reproductive lives versus guns which of course is inscribed now under individual rights to bear arms. But its such an important point that you make that we should have opposing use cases in our head to make sure where shoring up our politics. Let me offer one further example but marijuana use is legal in some states, itsa crime and others. We have had a surprisingly low number of states trying to prosecute people and get high illegally. Even if that the federal government makes it still a felony in the state where its legal is not aggressively prosecuted people there. Im not sure with some of these hard issues, people of good faith have very different views where even the people who want it to be criminal want to take it so far as to say if its legal where you do it westill want to penalize it. I think of fetus just changes that example entirely because smoking pot, youre doing harm to yourself. But when it comes to prolife folks they think its a person. So getting yourself addicted to drugs is not affecting the life right . Im conscious of the fact that for 50 years this was a debate that was once i did have to show up and the other side kept saying it was and now everybody has to have a view. And most of the use expressed in whole are really quite middleoftheroad. It would be easy as a politician to get burned by saying i can say anything because ive always said anything. This is great, i have many more questions here. Were kind of coming up on the top of the hour let me take one set here that is a good try point. Because the questioner asks questions of all three. So im going to read all three and im going to go either in the opposite order of which are read them. Stewart, to the extent there are things we communicate that are facts about us, dont you think that all aspects of private syndication whether health would be characterized as private . Danielle, can you give us an example of private data that could be at risk of postdocs something a concerned voter would react to . And then james, can you explain your reasoning why privacy in this persons perception hypothetical future clause. Im good. Go for it jane, you get to go first. I think atusing dobbs to try to shake the privacy debate is that we are asking privacy to do too much. Most of the concerns that were raising at least with respect to prosecuting women who try to seek out an abortion stemmed from the fact that either we dont think abortion should be illegal atall , i think that describes a good number possibly a majority of people in this country. Or its illegal, it should be a regulatory issue. Not rising to the level of actually putting someone in jail. And given thats my instinct about whats driving this debate and this anxiety i think we should place the focus on that point. On what should the balance of the criminal code be . How do we know that surface claims should be merely regulated versus actually immoral and having sort of externalities that are so bad that we want to put a person life on hold and incarcerate them. And if we did that and we had good answers to those questions and we were able to monitor the criminal code, at least some, not all but some of the privacy problems would be resolved or diminished. It does strike me that to some degree a lot of this is about over criminalization of things that we generallythink , every one of these examples are pretty much found and should be criminal. Danielle could be a risk we could freak out the conservatives that are listening. We should go back to warren, the examples i give about husbands writes a letter to the sun explaining not having lunch but in that letter even if its quite prosaic and boring they say no one should be reading that letter except for if they want other people to read it. This would be an lx a echo in your home, collecting data and storing it to the cloud. Those conversations in the bedroom, people are going to be with me even if you ask Warren Brandeis what shelby whispered in the closet should not be shouted fromthe rooftop. Maybe im wrong but im hoping theres some adherence on the conservativeside. Youre basically after defending the extreme end of your view. Out joined danielle. I said weve always treated medications as more private and provided more legislative support on two medications. Its not that every communication is a matter of intimate privacy. Im guessing that no more than two a week of mine come close. But its enough that treating the categories separately is acceptable. Its a reasonable way to address i will say quite reasonable concern about how disastrous it would be if anything we ever said in a key medication wasavailable to everybody. That said, we have exceptions. If youre talking to somebody who is willingly agreed to wait where a liar you got no privacy at all. And if youre talking about the crime and the government has probable cause to agree the communication is about crime you have no privacy so we have exceptions to a lot of these rules. Starting out with these communications broadly speaking makes sense to me. Spi see that stephen has rejoined us live which is the visual cue that our time is up. So i will say thank you and he will say thank you. My thanks her to my friends jane danielle and stuart for participating in this conversation and for really engaging thoughtful and civil discussions which is so rare these days. Im overjoyed to be able to participate. Steve . Thank you to all our panel of experts for sharing your insight today and to the audience for joining us for. For more content like this visit right project. Org and thank you. Goodbye. Middle and high School Students, its your time to shine. Youre invited toparticipate in this years cam. Competition. In light of the midterm elections picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. We asked this years competitors what is your top priority . Make a 5 to 6 minute video that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. Dont be afraid to take risks with your documentary. People. Among the 100,000 cash prizes is a 5000 grand prize. Videos be submitted by january 20 2023. Visit our website at studentcams. Org for competition rules, tips, resources and a stepbystep guide. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government ended by these televisioncompanies and more including charter communications. Thats why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. Charter is connecting us. Charter communications supports cspan as a Public Service along with these other television providerscan you a front row seat to democracy. Someday on q a a look at the commercial farming industrywith investigative reporters douglas rand and catherine caldwell. There the authors of sand war where they argue long scale hatcheries threaten the environment and produce fish that are unhealthy for humans to eat. Each time consist usually of maybe 10 to 20, 10 or 12 pages and each case holds up to 100,000 fish so a farm itself can contain 1 million or more fish. These dens are crammed with fish as catherine describes but because of that proximity the parasites find many willing hosts and its easier to spread diseases. Douglas frantz and catherine cawley with their book salmon horse sunday night at 8 pm eastern on today. You can listen to q a and all their podcasts on her free cspan now. The air force chief of staff general Charles Brown talked about modernizing the u. S. Air force , responding to questions about the impact of cobit and inflation on troop readiness and retention. General brown also talks about americas role in the South China Sea as tensions continet