This weekend, booktv is live from the 33rd annual Chicago Tribune printers row lit fest in chicago. Our coverage starts today at 11 00 a. M. Eastern with author Mary Dearborn with her book, ernest hemingway, a biography. At noon, abram candy and his book. Followed at 1 00 by Michael Eric Dyson with his book, tears we cannot stop, a sermon to white america. And at 4 00, Sidney Blumenthal with his book. On sunday, our coverage continues at 11 00 a. M. Eastern with heather and thompson and her book, lead in the water, the attica prison uprising of 1971 and its legacy. At 2 00, Jeffrey Stone with his book. Then at 3 00, former congressman. Rey radel with his book at 4 00, author thomas riggs with his book, churchill and orwell, the fight for freedom. Watch our coverage of the annual printers row lit fest starting at 11 00 on cspan twos booktv. Sunday, q1 day is in hyde park, new york at the Franklin D Roosevelt museum where we go inside for a look at fdrs personal office and collection of artifacts with the museums director. This Museum Opened in june 1941 and he was still the president so this essentially became the northern oval office. There are 914 books in this room alone and every book was selected by fdr to be in this room. This room is almost identical to the way it was the day fdr died. Watch q and a from the franklin Roosevelt Museum in hyde park, new york at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Washington journal, continues. Host we are joined with brent supremeo discuss the Court Decision to hear a major cell phone privacy case. Thank you for joining us. Guest thank you for having me. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case of carpenter versus the united states. Tell us the story behind the case. Guest the court agreed to hear this next term, and the case involves privacy and big data and police collection in the internet age. In this case according to the government, carpenter was the mastermind behind a string of armed robberies in the detroit area and northern ohio, and Police Arrested one of the suspects who turned over carpenters phone number. They went to his phone company and subpoenaed about four months of his phone records. It is about 186 pages of his phone records included. Numbers of the calls, duration of the calls, and location information. When people use a cell phone they connect typically to the nearest cell phone tower to you cannot pinpoint where someone is but you can get it within a mile or half mile generally. On mr. D a lot of data carpenter and with this evidence he was convicted of taking part in six armed robberies in detroit and northern ohio. He claims that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The Fourth Amendment protects our persons or houses, places and effects from unoriginal unreasonable searches or seizure. They need a search warrant and they need probable cause, and in this case as is typical, police just use a subpoena to get the information and he alleges that violates the Fourth Amendment. It is a big privacy case, there is a lot of interest, and people are increasingly putting data online. Smartphones have changed our relationship with third parties like this. Host an rollcall has a little more about the case that centers on increasingly detailed information that Companies Keep on texts and calls to and from a cell phone, as well as the relatively precise location that can be gleaned from that information. The question is whether cell phone users can expect that data to remain private as subject to the Fourth Amendments projection protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Talk a little bit about that, the expectation of privacy. We live in an era where we know our cell phones track everywhere we go and people voluntarily put up doesnt give up a lot of information when they post about their location. A lot of information when they post about their location. Guest the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s announce the expectation of privacy report, and courts of held if you dont have an expectation of privacy of the information it is not a search, and this is what the lower court said in the carpenter case. He knows or should have known that phone companies are collecting his information, including his location, and therefore it is not searchable when police subpoena that information. It is a question of whether people know this. We turn over immense amounts of data and people i talk to you are surprised about how much information they turn over. There is a hope by civil Rights Groups that the Supreme Court will take this case and reevaluate, does this reasonable expectation test from the 1960s and 1970s, does this make sense in the internet connected world where we are all turning over immense amounts of data to third parties . Host we are joined by brent skorup, the Technology Policy researcher at George Mason UniversitysMercatus Center. Republicans can call 202 7488001, democrats, 202 7488000, and independents, 202 7488002. Remind our viewers how much information and they monitor may not realize how much these phones contain about their daily lives. Guest we have apps and we click the agreements to have the apps so our phones are sending information to third parties all the time. Under this doctrine, it is not a search if police seek this without a warrant, with a subpoena. We are turning over in immense amounts of data. Just four months of carpenters phone information was 186 pages, including numbers he called and his location. Low valueo encourage fishing expeditions by police. Last year they received 120,000 subpoenas for these cases, about 300 and day. At t similarly breakout location uest for police, 170 5000 75,000 in a year. With the internet and the internet of things, devices will all be connected. People are putting cameras in their homes and if that is uploaded, and of course that recognize the thirdparty doctrine, that can be collected without a warrant. And so you see this collision of modern technology pushing up against the thirdparty doctrine , this idea that you do not have an expectation of privacy. Host this area of law was piece byhis opinion the New York Times points out that this area of the law was 1979. Back in a Court Decision by the u. S. Supreme court that dealt mostly with rotary phones and phonebooks listings, and says there is good reasons to question the scope of that doctrine now that virtually everyone is online virtually all of the time. Being exposed to constant, more or less digital surveillance. Ruling a Supreme Court that the Police Needed a warrant to track a car with a gps device. Justice Sonia Sotomayor or said in a concurrence that the doctrine is illsuited to the digital age in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out monday and tasks. Ndanenday and tasks mu tasks. Guest the case you referenced, the 1979 case maryland versus what, the court analogized phone numbers he was calling and the court said, people are used to calling operators decades ago. And this is akin to an operator. People did not have a next edition of privacy with an operator and therefore they do not have it with their phone company even though it is an automated process. I will add that the thirdparty doctrine is not strictly in the constitution. The constitution talks about papers and effects. There is not a thirdparty doctrine. This overlays the Fourth Amendment. Groups are hoping the Supreme Court will question this doctrine because it is not constitutional. Host one of our viewers on twitter, jodi points out anything you do or say involves electronic devices. It is there to be used against you in a court of law. Dont expect it anymore. Should people expect that when you live in the digital age and theres so much Information Available about people, that that should lessen their expectation of privacy . Guest i think it is time to reevaluate. I think most people would be surprised to learn they have forfeited their Fourth Amendment rights when they turned this over to a third party. I think that is a dubious premise and as i said, it is kind of extraconstitutional. It is developed by lower courts based on language from the ,upreme court, and most people i think they do expect that their privacy is protected by these companies, by these third contractby law and by the Companies Must protect the privacy of their subscribers and there are big fines if they share information with commercial users. That is not the case for Law Enforcement, and theres a disconnect there. Host we are talking with brent skorup of the Mercatus Center about this big case coming up in the Supreme Court that will help determine the limits, the Fourth Amendment limits of collecting cell phone data. Republicans can call 202 democrats, 202 independents and others, 202 7488002. With thee court agrees defendant in this case, mr. Carpenter, how might that change . What are the implications for data policy . Guest there are numerous ways the Supreme Court could address this issue, and the hope of Civil Liberties group is perhaps the third tourney thirdparty doctrine will be narrowed or perhaps not used anymore. And so that would give people more protection of their privacy, of their information when it is turned over to third parties. Right now, as i said, there is a of fishing expectations expeditions going on by police as data is collected. If the Supreme Court puts more limits on the thirdparty doctrine, then people can expect more privacy. They will not have to be as concerned when they turn over information to the companies that connect us and bring us all these great Internet Services. Host should our viewers be concerned and doing Something Different with their phones for fear that this information may be more easily obtained . Guest most people do not have any urgent need to be concerned about this. I think it is more of a longterm pernicious threat to privacy. Time will tell what the court does, but i think peoples expectations have changed since the 1960s and 1970s. There are statutes that protect some of this information, particularly content. Congress has passed laws and state courts have protected against thirdparty use by Law Enforcement. The law is very confused and the lower courts are asking the Supreme Court to take this up because it is a patchwork right now. Host mason freed wechsler, a , one attorney at the aclu of the organizations representing mr. Carpenter in this case explains the broader view. He said incidentally, the u. S. Supreme courts decision comes on the fouryear anniversary of the first of Edward Snowdens disclosures which revealed that the National Security agency had been collecting sensitive records about virtually every phone call made in the united states. After an Appeals Court found the nsas collection violated the law and in response to the outcry, the Congress Passed the usa freedom act to restrict the governments surveillance authority. The broader question about how the Fourth Amendment protects all sorts of sensitive and voluminous digital records about communications and activities. This could name could be much broader, and involve metadata and other things. How big could this get . Guest it is up to the court, and the Supreme Court does not generally like to make sweeping changes to core precedent so i think it will be a narrow issue of location. There is an issue of lower court asking for guidance that the Supreme Court could make a more sweeping decision on the thirdparty law. For instance, the wall street journal reported in october that federal agencies in california federal license plate readers. This could have an impact on that sort of Data Collection. Progressives pointed out the lease and states have spent millions of Dollars Police in states have spent millions of dollars on stingrays, that basically jam cell phone signals and force them onto a police network. With that, they can collect information about who is in the vicinity, and they have alleged this is being used to identify protesters. The Supreme Court could provide more protections against this sort of Data Collection. Host michael is calling in from new york on our democrat line. Caller how are you guys . Guest doing great, thank you. Backr this is going way when they wanted apple to unlock that phone to that terrorist in i think texas, the guy that shot at the military base. Guest the Supreme Court, not in that case but in a similar case, the riley case, held that phone devices are protected by the Fourth Amendment and generally police need a search warrant to access personal devices like that. Constitutional analysis changes in the information is transmitted, as it often is, to a third party. If it is uploaded to apple servers or google servers or using dropbox or sending a text message, if it leaves your device is essentially or your home, it receives reduced Fourth Amendment restrictions. Host talk about that a little bit more. If it is data on your phone and your phone is lost locked a Police Officer can force you to unlock that but if it is transmitting data that is another standard . Guest the thirdparty regulation treats your phone as property that is regulated. That civil doctrine liberties groups and some courts are saying in this age of Internet Connectivity, we have apps that are sending information at all hours of the day and increasingly we are putting these devices in our homes. It makes sense to update this law and thirdparty doctrine to protect peoples expectations. Host gary is calling in on our democratic line. Caller thank you for taking my call. , we hadd of curious this thing past about the Internet Provider server, whatever, being able to sell information. Thisthat overlap into thing that you are talking about now . That you more comment, know, if you are not doing anything wrong why should you be worried about if the law gets a hold of information . If you are not doing anything wrong then what is the problem . That is what i had to say about that. Guest thanks for the question. I think you are referring to the fccs title ii regulations and Congress Passed the law, the Obama Administration passed some privacy regulations for Internet Service providers. That is a separate issue. It is related in ways that they are third parties that you turn information over, police can get it with a subpoena often. In that case, it is commercial regulation of data. It is about what isps and websites can sell, and that is handled by the federal trade commission and they regulate this heavily. Data is heavily regulated. Commercial companies cannot sell it if it is not consented. The second question host if you do not have anything to hide. Guest i think that is a popular sentiment. The Fourth Amendment protects regardless, and is meant to protect innocent people. Presumably with all of this Data Collection there is a lot of innocent peoples data being collected, people who have not done anything wrong. Lawyers had a report couple of agency,o that the dea we saw this collection going on a phone and internet content, Government Agencies are coordinating and calling up state lawmakers and saying, go to this truckstop and find a reason to stop this car and search it. That is kind of pernicious collection of data. Normslates the rights and we expect Law Enforcement to have. It does capture innocent people and there is questions that the police are misusing this data in some cases. Host could the carpenter case affect devices other than cell phones . Homes, devices in our whether it is a Wireless Connection or other devices that transmit information about what we are doing, what we are watching, does this apply to those too . Guest it could. The narrow question before the court, is location Data Collected from a Cell Phone Company available for search . They could open this up generally. Has showedomayor or an interest in reevaluating thirdparty doctrine, an