Because of course if the government were targeting a particular known u. S. Person for surveillance for criminal prosecution purposes it would need a warrant. Heres how that looks in practice. The government certifies to the fisa court would have no interest in any particular known u. S. Person, clicks the data, then run searches on the data using the names phone numbers and email accounts of particular note u. S. Persons. This is called backdoor searches. The nsa and the set a data privately to thousand of these in 2013. According to the privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board the fbi does these routinely. Routinely searches databases containing section seven to data when it investigates americans or even performs assessments which means no factual basis. Warrantless surveillance, warrantless foreign Intelligence Surveillance have absolute become a domestic Law Enforcement tool. I do give anything to add or if you youre seeing this is concerned youre seeing a similar cases as well . I think that is a concern. I think we sort of in how we saidsetthis party we seek to consent to a Large ProgramData Collection programs and being used in prosecution and then just other technological trends driving vast collection by local Government Agencies as well because its just not that expensive anymore. I want to get each of the panelists a chance to talk about what they see as the Biggest ChallengesGoing Forward some going to let them go down the line into the infinite going to open it up to questions, and remind our audience that you can email questions at gmail. Com. We will get through hopefully as any of them as possible probably not all of them. I guess the biggest challenge i see theres a ton of big challenges but the biggest challenge for my perspective who works for lawyers all the time is getting information you can use to reason about some of these things. Theres two challenges. One is knowing what they are doing which is difficult to know, specialist or powerpoint and fisc finds. Those are not what they used to make decisions and help others do that but also, for example just to pick one out off the top my head im working on right now, in terms of information sharing a domestic cybersecurity, its very hard to serve teach lawyers how Network Operations and Network Security works. Its not impossible and were going to do but its the kind of thing where theres a sense of ways of talking of information that we just have really built up over the years and were going to need to invest in so to speak and have like little Network Security for lawyers or Network Security not for dummies will for people and may not be as motor with that. We can do and say things like gee, do want to share that information . The stuff we used to defend ourselves, theres no liability associate, no ecpa stuff that pertains to the. Its hard to sort of talk about that in a way that sort of bridges the technologists lawyer that. Thats one of my big challenges. I see several challenges. I think one of the primary ones is convincing the public of the threat. I think a lot of people think i should also life with google anyway. But theres a big difference in the sticks of sharing all your information with shooting and sharing all your information with the nsa. The potential for abuse when the government collects this much information on everyone is real. But i think its only a matter of time before the potential starts to be realized in ways that people can see and canfield. I think its part of american exceptionalism that people think that their government, our government would never use it smashes guitars against the people in the other comments did all the time and our own government did it for decades. Another challenge is that Technology Just move so quickly and Public Opinion moves more slowly and the law moves even more slowly than that. So by the time the law catches up, they can be sort of de facto too late. So right now we now have an entire intelligence establishment whose central function is to maintain and use the vast databases of information gathered through mass surveillance. Changing this is going to be as such is going to be changing the law at this point is for into the game. Its good to be about breaking down and redefining institutions. There are very powerful institution forces against that kind of change. Were seeing that now. I would say that we have an important case going on right now regarding the u. S. A. Freedom act and the scope of the authorities of u. S. Government to collect metadata information and to target communications of people in the United States better communicate with people overseas. Want the scope of those authorities are how oversight should be conducted, what amount of transfer should be required of the government. But i also think theres a broader debate that weve had trouble focusing on which relates to the scope of authorities that take place outside of the particular statutes that we have. And those are the ones that are most directly impacting trust in technology that is built by u. S. Companies and our ability to sell the technology around the world. I mentioned for the concept of having new rules of the road, and the issues i would flag army of the ones that you see in the Intelligence Review Group report. The initial messaging they came out of the administration focused on the fact that the programs that authorized by 215 and 702 only relate to the purpose of foreign intelligence collection is to focus on people who are not u. S. Persons. And given that the vast majority of used Technology Companies are already selling the biggest part of the market share and certainly the future of the growth is around the world, that gave very little comfort to customers of our companies. And so you see the administration involved some of its messaging. They have put out the 28th document which talks about the rights of Foreign Forces versus u. S. Person to get you see the government taking positions in the litigation to mention before with regard to the ward for data stored outside of the United States that again goes to this issue of trust and impacts the ability of people around the world to lay claim that they believe are best designed to protect their own privacy and to guard against access to Government Agencies. I would say among the recommendations that are in that intelligence review report i pick out an interesting example, the disclosure point and to so some of by the administration there. Michael bennet did a blog laughter that talked about a bias towards disclosing information about vulnerabilities to companies that might be impacted by them. But we still a very little about the operation of this policy. It was a lawsuit by the aclu to gain access to documents that were described how the policy works. That was blocked. Useful not only for americans and for people around the world also for the government to have more information in the Public Domain about what this process is, where in the government decisions are made would give us more certainty about the weighting of the different impacts that go along with decisions like that. And what factors would be used in determining when exceptions are made. Potential is a good story there that they have but i think they continue to be caught up in concerns about what level of disclosure they are willing to make them even around the processes. So i think those are the top challenges that i see. For far too long the government has been able to executive assessment able to engage in extremely aggressive surveillance programs with little public knowledge. I think, and with real harms as a result. I think one of the most striking things was after Edward Snowden revealed the existence of the 250 program which resulted in the mass collection of all americans telephone metadata you can listen to present the policy dont worry its just metadata and business as well as approved it, really fell flat and the reason it fell flat was because there have not been any public debate and the public i think, the jury is still out on how the program is ultimate going to fare but it is at the very least cause a very significant debate. I think thats the broad theme is a lot of the stuff has been going on in secret for too long and it is really come it really damaging consequence. To bring it back since were at the nacdl to make this practical, like it makes it really hard to buy the product suppression motions on behalf of your clients if you dont know what technology is being used. I think the stingray example is the best one of that. Im dismayed that stingrays have been using think for at least a decade. And nonetheless its only been in the last few years the people been aware of how widespread this technology is. And some we are always playing catchup and just that the criminal defense bar has really made Great Strides in front appropriate suppression motions motions in this editor types want to point out one useful resource which is the aclu of Northern California published a report on the use of stingrays but it is geared towards criminal defense attorney speak like you is how you know, heres a you can make a good guess about whether to see the technology was actually used in your case, and then there are some things you can do if you want to try to get criminal discovery about the use of the technology. So i think there are many pressure points point the unthinkable defense attorney have an Important Role to play. I think also im optimistic and im looking at franklin aclu of virginia wants and does but im optimist about what can happen at the local apple. The federal government may be largely bought into this stuff but they weve seen an incredible number of drivers related bills introduced at the state level. Virginia has been active there but seattle and tacoma both has really innovative laws saying to the local Law Enforcement agencies if you want to acquire Surveillance Technology of to come to the city council beforehand and tell us about it because what happens now is because federal Grant Programs make money out of it to local Police Departments, in the City Councils dont learn about it until after the fact those particular bills that they pass unfortunately have some serious flaws became the aclu of Northern California put out a model to think is quite useful. Survey is dedication ordinance which are neutral on the technology but basically city council is trying to reassert some control by saying you have to tell us if youre going to use this technology. And i really am and probably in favor that if i dont want to minimize that the government does have legitimate National Study interests in certain areas, by the time the problem is you know other cities cant even know what the Police Department of doing in criminal cases. I think the secrecy has gone too far. One more point for optimism. To attaboy just heard. I do think that there are a fair number of really important decisions that would seem that have not been challenged by the government. And that the trend in the court is going towards finding more things to be within realm of weasel expectation of privacy of u. S. Citizens. And so when the war shag to seeking out i think is a fair amount of expectation of the can was going to challenge that point and to try to obtain information that was more than 180 days old without a word. We have not seen that happen and over time as google and then followed by pretty much every major provider of email cloudbased services in the country, the demand has been made that he was a Government Produced warrants before contents will be turned over. That is effectively the law of the land even though that is not how the statute is currently written. And even the department of justice has over time conceded the point in testimony before congress that the 180 day rule is arbitrary, doesnt make any sense, should be updated. Weve had difficulty getting that across the finish line in terms of codifying the change, but the jones case again was the principle i think that for many years was accepted that if the government was just observing things are happening on the streets, that automate that through technology would not create additional concerns that would require a warrant. The courts have felt otherwise and do to the riley decision that we heard about before hold not only very interesting points about cell phones themselves and the content of what they hold but theres i believe its in Justice Roberts part of the opinion, a reference to the notion that these devices are connected to the cloud and that that might create additional concerns. But the phones themselves obviously hold so much more information than when the original doctrine was developed that my phone is 64 gigabytes of memory on it and probably exceeds some of the computers that might be in the room. That technology is changing. The law is clearly not keeping pace with the development of the technology, but there are i think positive trends and the courts with regard to the development of for them in the law that we should be very happy about. I would agree with that. The only one point i just want to make is that a think the reason why the government isnt pushing back harder against warshak and against where things are going with the in the continent is because they can can get 95 of what it needs through metadata. Great. I would like to open it up to question. On the note of optimism i encourage folks here to look at pbd 28 which not whether it is real significance. Its an interesting step forward indias government acknowledging the benefits of providing rights to noncitizens in this area as well. Theres a lot to be pessimistic about but theres no sub optimism also. With that are like to invite you up to ask questions because the microphone on both sides of the room. Please ask question to this is not a chance to make speeches. We can talk to our panelists later but please come forward and ask your questions. Another reminder for those who are watching, you can send a question to nacdl questions at gmail. Com and we will answer your questions. Thanks. Norman reamer executive director. Thank you to all of you. Catherine, want to ask you, you ticked off some of the local surveillance capacities that are out there. Can you give us a more comprehensive list of what local Law Enforcement is able to do in terms of collecting data images and all the rest on folks . Thanks. Good to see you, too. Why dont i start off a a brains from accession into the people can jump in automatic license plate readers which can step photographs of every passing car. Local enforcement agencies can install these on a trocar for on highway overpasses. They can also purchase access to large private databases. That are read women who attach these to the cars and go rent snapping photographs and those pictures get put into huge databases. Aerial surveillance is interesting, although i think it is in some sense overhyped so it can be done now. It has a lot of potential manned helicopters are expensive and the many local Law Enforcement agencies of the drones are cheap, right . And the little ones are not pacifists could write up what i think is fascinating is the possibly of persistent aerial surveillance, the idq could fly something over a city or i dont know if you seen these but you can see individuals Walking Around the streets and track cars. I think thats fascinating. Cell phone data can be obtained. Theres location data stretching back for as long as the mobile phone carrier wants to keep it. They can be browsing industry. Taken the records of phone calls people have dialed. Everything you dont social media, this is depressing as i am listing it but am trying to ask oppressive as possible right . Unfortunately we all know of people who share more there than perhaps, perhaps would be wise. Theres a store in maine of a guy who posted his marijuana photographs on facebook but didnt realize a friend of his friend was a cop and then got busted this way. Thats not a great example but theres a lot of data about what people do. If your card has an inboard Navigation System in a be possible to sort of unclear theres one sort of interesting federal Court Decision on this to try to do that and maybe even automate the microphone if thats possible. Theres surveillance in a lot of different locations to what else is on the list . Im going to be more forward thinking and since a lot of this stuff you see put on aerial surveillance platforms has previously existed in the military content. That kind of fun technical toys theyre putting on surveillance, military Surveillance Drones are pretty striking. So things like lidar come you can think of as laser it can see through foliage because of these moves and it is the thing that is not by the guided over all of the time it can tell you whats behind things that look like leaves which can believes or other things. Theres Synthetic Aperture Radar which can look through thin types of materials like your traits into blind and stuff like that. Talk about and theres a title type of things like infrared kinds of stuff but theres also stuff like Spherical Lens surveillance platforms. Sufficed to say that these things can take what we call dick a pixel images on the basis of an entire urban area or rur