Manned helicopters extremely expensive and not many local Law Enforcement agencies own them. Drones are cheap and the little ones arent that sophisticated. But what i think is really fascinating is the possibility of ariel surveillance the idea that you could fly something over a city. You could sort of see individuals Walking Around the streets and trap cars, so i think thats really fascinating. Cell phone data can be obtained. This is location dayta stretching back for as long as the mobile phone carrier wants to keep it. Text messages, browsing history. It can be records of phone calls people have dialed. Everything you do on social media, this is really depressing. As im listening, just tryinging to be as comprehensive as possible. There are circumstances in which you can get access to day to on peoples facebook or other accounts. We all know of people who share more there than perhaps would be wise. There is the story in maine of the guy who was who posted his you know 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, pu theres a lot of data. If your car has an inboard Navigation System it may be possible, its unclear, theres one interesting federal Court Decision to track you through that and maybe even automate the microphone if thats possible. And obviously theres surveillance cameras in a lot of different locations. What else is on the list . Im going to be more forward thinking in the sense that a lot of this stuff you see on there, ariel surveillance platforms has previously existed, so the kind of fun technical toys theyre putting on Surveillance Drones are pretty striking. So things like you can think of as laser ranging, it can see through foilage because the leaves move and it can tell you whats behind things like leaves. Theres synthetic anture radar, which can look through thin materials like your drapes and your blinds and stuff like that. Talk about and theres like the kylo things, infrared. Also spherical. Len lens flat forms. These can take pixel images on a regular basis of an area where its looking. These are give you the able thety to basically see features from a pretty high Vantage Point at like you know foot to inch or few centimeter kinds of resolutions in a highly time sensitive way. This stuff is, some of it is not available to people operating current types of ariel surveillance platforms but its not going to be a lot of time before thats demanded for whatever reason to use these. I would add bio metrics and fingerprint scanners. Theres also what can be done with this data, you have ariel surveillance, you have this videos, facial recognition technology. Fingerprints can be captured from incredibly large distances because you can, the images are so precisely can blow them up and get your fingerprints so you can identify all these blurs on the video feed and then you know rocks. I dont know if anybody read about this, but the military, when it was withdrawing from villages in afghanistan, would leave rocks that had cameras in them that had 20year batteries. Why cant i get one of those for my phone . Just record continuously and feed it back. Those are now at the border, so, you know, beware of rocks. Its just incredible. Its anything everything. And facial recognition is very very, very powerful. Theres things you dont know about. Side face and gait, how you walk, those two combinations together are extremely identifiable. Unless youre wearing somethingu8hat obscures that and often theres mask laws a great paper on this talking about the kkk intimidating people meant theres a loft states that have laws saying you cant wear masks except halloween and other holidays. Tomas mask your gait you have to have a ministry of silly walks to make sure they cant profile your silly walk. Im reading, taking questions from email. We got one from ma whos asking about it being reducktive to compile all meta data as being equivalent to accessibleility of many systems used by carriers and other collectors huge range among health participants, creating meta dayta barrier. I dont know if you know what that is. I dont. But i think the point of the question is isnt there different degrees . Isnt it a lot to say theyre equivalent to personal identifying information . Absolutely. Thats not a very sorry its not a very profound found statement. The, you can record meta data about anything. Some is not going to be interesting or useful for what you want to use it for. The trick is the inference capable of data we know about is extremely powerful. For example, a science paper about four weeks ago showed that with a large body of 30 million Financial Transactions it was sufficient to identify a single individual by observing four transactions of theirs and if in by trying to munlg it a little bit, they were able to protect individuals in that data set much more. Its js saying that stuff you need to protect it more robustly than you might think and certainly, the temperature of this room is the type of meta data, doesnt reveal a lot about whos in it specifically. It may sort of map on to how much fun were having and other kinds of things. Sir. Mike bryce from the brennan center. Please frame your comment in the form of a question. I will. On the meta data versus content issue. Youre correct. But the current state of the law draws this distinction between content and meta data. As we started to tease out, meta data can be really, really important if not more so than content. Fyi to a group of supporters maybe theres not much there in terms of content, but you have an entire membership list. Or given enough meta data, you dont really need u content. Content is d it requires sophistication to analyze. Meta datas really easy. You can put it into an al gor rhythm and the more you have, it seems like content becomes less and less important. I think it was maik Michael Hayden that said we kill people based on meta data. Whether the panel compels that sort of distension or whether its something we have gravted on to it and can reverse. Well, as most people here probably know, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted in different ways and at different times in our countrys history and has really struggled to keep up with technology and has gennarilyuineerallyni lag edged for a long time. In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled theres no Fourth Amendment right of privacy in a phone call because the government didnt have to intrude on your property in any way and it wasntco until 1967 that the Supreme Court revisited this. Privacy isnt just in your privacy. It can ube, it fl lows the person, not the property and it can be in a phone call if you go into a phone booth and close the door. Many doctrines have changed over time to match the technology and the challenge for you know, all these Brilliant Minds here, this is something werev at the brennan center, is to try to figure out approaches to the Fourth Amendment going forward. These doctrines are many are going to go by the wayside. I truly believe based on the signals that theko Third Party Doctrine will not last so what will replace it . That challenges to find an enduring vision of thep, Fourth Amendment that wont go by the wayside the nextqn time theres a new technology. Thats not easy to 6 should be possible and should incorporate meta data that do impinge on a reasonable expectation of privacy. Its much harder to protect meta data. A lot of that is used to protect information or something in the middle that if you remove that, we wouldnt be able to do those communications. Theres that kind of an angle where weve gotten better, were doing pretty good. I was a little pessimistic, but were doing pretty good. You get into things like shuffling, tour, an anonymous browsing tool where you just route through a bunch of ways and there are certain things you cant do. Its hard to have real time voice and video calling because its just bouncing around the world. I dont think that the, i dont have a copy in front, but i dont think the word meta data is in the Fourth Amendment, and so, no but my point there is that theu8 concepts l nchange. I think even ther ontinue to assemblages ofyn jones case may implicate avz foun . 7 amendment over time. ;n x j 1qgzhcpmn3aon we also havehpftd3 people0zwa[m . Courts going to overrule the cases. I think it will attempt to limit them and one way is by making this content, noncontent distension. Thank you. Yes, im going to read a couple of these. I know time is winding up. I dont know if you want to take a few questions and then go back to the panel. Sure. One is from robert ger. I may have said that wrong. He said you mentioned the use of internet geography is a challenge. What other aspects like ad networks would further undermine the aspects of users. Is itqrg shared for domestic cases. A question from will carson have on sub peepoenas, et cetera and the last question i think was directed at catherine, but she talked about having raised the concern is it accurate that the zone still exists and the protections are not granted to americans on their technological devices. Im assuming she means at border and enter tri points and she adds yes further efforts being made in these areas. Why dont i take those three because that was a lot. Ill just punt and say, send me an email, we could have a phone call. Theres a lot of things that people dont understand or have intuitive feelings for where the technical reality doesnt match well. So for example, people tend to think encryption is about hiding things, but its also about making sure you cant hide things. You can also reach our website https with the s being secured. We have engineered that, its extremely hard to exploit anyone. Maybe were not so much of a destination, if you do that, we have one little advertiser, this is something ive been working op, we pull in a third party element that is not encrypted, thats an avenue for someone to inject malicious software. Unfortunately, i have a long list of things i could talk about. Its probably not a good use of our time. Maybe i should write something to that. Send me an email and we can have a longer conversation. On the Constitution Free zone question. I want to separate out two concepts. There is this idea that the government has extraordinary powers. Not only at the border, but some distance inland in order to exercise its border authority. There is a separate government policy for customs and border protections in which the government asserts that at ports of entry themselves at the border, it can search peoples cell phones and laptops and other devices with no suspicion whatsoever whatsoever. But i have not heard of that particularly authority being aplied outside of a purported entry itself. Theres a caveat they will sometimes take your laptop and the border, then search it. Sir . Rob from aclu of virginia. Assuming that the Supreme Court largely leaves the Third Party Doctrine in place, it seems like it would be necessary to amend the state institutions. Is anyone up here aware of language that would in effect overrule the Third Party Doctrine in a state constitution and how could you do that . Im not aware of any attempt to do that. I think you know probably i have to confess, i mean sort of my focus on a lot of these issues are national and i dont think a state obviously a state constitutions not going to protect people from the federal governmentc surveillance and picking up meta data. 99 so but it is interesting. At the state level, we ox seeing this legislation and license plate leaders and all of that. Im not aware of any efforts to amend state constitutions. I suppose its jnst easier to get legislation than a constitutional amendment at the state level, so thats where the efforts have been put. With regard to that idea of pursuing three state bills rq are seeing a number of states where there are proposes that say somethingfa like obviously they cant control federal authorities, but they will say Police Agencies that are part of the state or local governments of this state cannot just seek x. 3arpto obtain the Contents Communications without a warrant. So, you could, i think in theory, define with regard to the authorities of the statec0 nd local Police Agencies their ability to demand various types of data with0l warrants and that might be and just uz clarify one thing. I dont think the Supreme Court is going to say, okay no more Third Party Doctrine. You have absolute reasonable expectation of privacy in everything you share with everyone. I dont think thats whats going to happen. I think we have very, very strong signals. Not just from Justice Sotomayors clearance, but from riley whenz talking about the things that made a cell phone so q uprivate. The information we put into apps. Information that is necessarily shared with third parties and clearly, there was an implicit recognition that that privacy was there despite having shared this information with third parties, so i dont see how thecor that doctrine can continue to exist in its current form. I shouldnt say its current form but the fisa courts interpretation of it. I love whats3witajjt on at the state level when itx÷ comes to privacy. S virginia has beenr of that. Weve been reading about your work on sting rays for example. I think state constitutions are some of the most exciting plays to go. Idv be happy to work with you or talk to you about that offline. I dontco actually think a constitution doesnt mention the Third Party Doctrine and its awkward to figure out how to reject itsso3 application in wording. But its very interesting. A lot of staten Supreme Courts have rej Third Party Doctrine. Could build off of. I really like this because i think its an alternative view. It can create a Workable World to the federal regime. It may not address the National Security issues,uit could address a lot of the local Law Enforcement issues. I think showing that you can have a an v alternative system, what we should acknowledge are legitimate Law Enforcement needs while safeguards Civil Liberties is really useful and so, ive been very excited by what ive seen comes out of the state level and i think its doable. Last question. To jim. ] dual question. And one is his words from jim too lazy to stand upjf harper who is asking c ne e1 panel to prognosticate on a likely outcome and significance of the city of los angeles versus pa tell, making Hotel Records available to Law Enforcement seizure on demand. And the last question, from jonathan,e1 do you see the normative inquiry playing the role ing83an changing the Third Party Doctrine . What types of compromise can be made that prevents Law Enforcement from conducting investigations . dfke so, are you asking for speculation on the outcome of that case . Going to have to send another email. Yeah. K lets see. Its Hotel Records, so its a littleesq tricky. Its not its different from a situation like phone records where you 4nc÷ 0 draw very direct inferences about associations g very very pick for the case that shouldp iahp hc eventually go up to the Supreme Court on the Third Party Records doctrine. I do ùyknow. Honestly, i dont know. I couldnt predict the outcome of that. Sorry. Q does anyone want to take the implications of rejection of the Third Party Doctrine . D ji its hard toe get away from normative implications of all of this. I think the idea theres a normative element to this isni hard to sustain andht3w thats just all lpdown. I just, i think part of the question asked about whether or not its possible to both modify or reject the Third Party Doctrine, also retain respect for Law Enforcement needs. T i just want, i think everyone here knows i think the government doesnt get access to infozmation, it just means the government needs a warrant based on the information based on the probable cause finding. The bank records, we have separate regulatory operations with regard to money ian laundering so that might be a place order to prevent money laundering, that you do have to have different think the overall pointb. Is that we need to dig deeper with regard to certain types of meta data and make decisions about whether or not the data itself or aggregation of that data or combination with other types create concerns that we would want to elevate the protections of those surrounding them. But i dont think its going to be a cut and dry formula youll use. With that i want to thank the outstanding panel for a really interesting conversation and for all of you being here as welor conclude tonight mltonight with ryp zinke. Hed service and his new role as an elected official. In this portion, he compares his experience as a s. E. A. L. To his life this congress. I kind of laugh sometimes being a congressman sometimes is more difficult than being a s. E. A. L. V and that you,xd as a s. E. A. L. , you can watch things get done. You can engage. You have a Terrific Team around you. Normally, you had the resources to win and you can watch progress being made. Nb on the hill, on the current you know polarization, theres progress being made. It is fixable. Absolutely fixable, but progress is not as rapid as what you would like. Youve got to