actually in charge of the camps to say it is not right for roosevelt keeps the coming and finally the secretary says i have been around those of zero longtime and i have a family after the election and things might change. sure enough, the first cabinet meeting after the 44 election after he is safe the elected three house seats gained a new work on getting the japanese out of the camps. . .

90% plus corporate tax rate you are talking about, excess profit, does that apply across the board to companies or was that part of some of progressive corporate tax? >> that was across the board. he had an earnings restriction that it wasn't very high so really most companies were caught if not at the 90% level at least pretty close to it. and certainly all major corporations were, had been caught at the 90% level so that was in place and it's important to note that roosevelt in many of his followers wanted to keep it that way or at least close to it after the war, the source of revenue for getting people their rights to a decent home or write to a good education and a right to a job. >> do you have another question? >> just on the politics of truman. could he have vetoed these reductions in taxes if he wanted

to? >> yes, he could have any did in. he went along with it. he was not enthusiastic about it but he went along with it. i'm not sure but what roosevelt might have vetoed it but again roosevelt is gone and you are trying to think what would he have done? but truly was willing at least on his first tax cut to go along with it and part of it was he was no one is job in congress is urging him but when further tax cuts were passed by congress in 1946 in 1947 he vetoed them again and again and again and ran against them in 1948 calling them tax cuts for the rich and made that the bassist, fundamental basis of his 1948 campaign for re-election. most of the money was going back to the rich and not toward the small guy. >> the book is fdr goes to war. thank you all for being here and let's break for lunch. [applause]

>> for more information about the author's visit burt folsom.com. >> lori andrews examines the ways social media users are surveyed by a host of parties they range from employers to data services and how personal information is often collected and sold. she argues that a social networks constitution is needed to protect privacy rights on line. this is a little over an hour. >> tonight we tackle a timely and thorny topic of individual freedom in the age of social media. the founding fathers protected important rights from individual

freedoms, right to privacy and the right to a fair trial but now on line social networks are creating an entirely new set of questions and challenges. colleges and employers reject applicants because of publicly available information and photos found on social networking sites. jurors post details on the case and asked their friends to vote on whether to send someone to jail. marketing companies have losses for collecting information about citizens based on our travels on the web without our knowledge or consent. how would the founding fathers of handle the scenarios? what would happen if those networking sites were subject to a bill of rights? we have a fantastic group of experts with us tonight to delve into the subject. starting with lori andrews. professor andrews -- science line technology illinois technology. work assesses the social impact of emerging technology. she is also a best-selling author and her latest book is

entitled "i know who you are and i saw what you did" social networks and the death of privacy and we are honored that are besser anders has chosen the national constitution center as a venue to launch this book tour. please join professor andrews for book a book signing tonight after our program. she explores the intersection of law technology, social media and personal information on the blog, the not so private part. before joining forbes hill was editor of the legal blog above the law does work for such publications as the week in the washington examiner. jennifer preston is a staff writer at "the new york times" where she covers the relationship of social media with politics government business and life. ms. preston took on this in january 2011 after working as a newsroom's first social media editor, a veteran and reporter preston began her career in philadelphia the bulletin newspaper in the philadelphia daily news. she serves as an adjunct

professor club university's graduate school of journalism. moderating tonight's is christopher wink. a media services council and for the on line ecosystem. he leads open government reporting projects in a difference to coverage of the icy policy and is running in "the philadelphia inquirer," the "pittsburgh post gazette" and the morning call. and now i ask you to silencer cell phones in consideration of your fellow guests but i encourage you to use them if you would like to tweak questions for our panel tonight. please use the hashtag pound ncc privacy. and now without further ado please join me in welcoming lori andrews, kashmir hill, jennifer preston and christopher wink. [applause] >> thank you everybody.

it turns out -- so it took a little bit what we are here. 225 years ago the constitution was written here in philadelphit years the foundation of our democracy, the communication patterns and issues of privacy were developed and 25 -- two and in 25 years new communication forms are developing new standards for i want to jump right into it with lori actually by telling us why the social web is a constitutional issue. maybe ground us first. >> our founding fathers would have loved facebook twitter and google. they have a clause in the constitution a patent clause to encourage innovation but they are also were very concerned about things like privacy, the fourth amendment, preventing fake cops from going in and

finding a letter in our drawer or our house but now everything private about us is in a cloud. it's not in the drawer so i think we have to figure out ways to protect with things we care about, free-speech right to a fair trial and so forth in the digital world. >> so what are we talking about? give us some of the names of the organizations, the services we are talking about and then bring in the other panelists. who are we talking about? >> we are talking about not only facebook but think about it, private data of 800 million people. it would be the third largest nation in the world after china and india has its own currency and economy and dealings with other nations china and so forth and yet there is no real graduation about what is done with information about who posted on the web site or facebook and if you think about it 800 million people's private information if the government tried to get that it would take laws and lawyers and

i would take guns and freely giving that information up so we are talking about that but we are also talking about companies who have never heard of, axiom, it data aggregator that has 1500 bits of information on 96% of americans. we are talking about a company that made a deal with internet service providers in california to put their hardware at the internet service provider can copy and analyze every e-mail, every web search, skype calls everything anybody sent ever google search over the web. there was litigation and there was just a settlement that you have to think about the many ways in which our private information has now become public, monetize, potentially used against us. >> sowa want to talk to kashmir. lori lori is talking about comparisons to today's states. the beginning of this conversation about how we are comfortable with what the web

entails is a reasonable expectation of privacy and i think there are those who would suggest it's ludicrous to think that. these are choices. talk a little bit about that feeling of reasonable expectation of privacy if any of us deserve to have it on the web and where that comes from. >> there are many different ways in which we are on the web and i think we have different degrees of privacy depending on which area we are talking about so i think you know it's fair to say we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our e-mail which is something private. but when we are talking about increasingly public forums like twitter or facebook, i think that there is less of an expectation of privacy when you are broadcasting in a place that you know people can look at and agree so i think we really have

to differentiate in terms of which forms we are talking about and i think because of the way facebook has changed over the years from being a private place to a more public place people are still adjusting to that and just this whole idea of putting a lot of information about ourselves on line and help their. a lot of people get uncomfortable when it is used against them just because they are not thinking of how exposed they really are. >> i would like to comment on the fact that e-mails are considered private and i think there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy but that is not what the courts are finding. new york judge said your e-mail should be treated like a postcard as if you are writing to anyone and if you look at court cases for example one woman who was injured in a personal injury case, the judge actually used her facebook picture of her smiling to say she can't be that hurt if she has a smiling picture on facebook not even asking if

it was before the accident. and people might think, might know enough not to have drunken photos of themselves on facebook and often things are used against you when you wouldn't think about it. a glass of wine at a wedding. 35% of employers say they have turned down job applicants because they have held a glass of wine in their hands. and you have things like, people who are you know the young poor kids who are charged as gang members because they are wearing gang colors. i looked at the launch of angeles police department definition of gangster. i don't think we understand that seemingly inaccurate pictures to us could be problematic. the woman who loses her child in a custody case because she has a picture on facebook.

it is not knowingly giving up your privacy. yes it's a twitter, youtube, you are talking a larger population but sometimes it sneaks up on you in terms of how this is used. >> i want to get more of a dialogue going but i want to put this in context. often in the united states when we are looking at facebook and twitter we will see this but jennifer talk to us a little bit about why social media and looking at how the constitution is a ball than the founding fathers might see at how much more important social media can be seen. we are looking directly at the air of arab spring. if you are involved in reporting tell us a little bit why the social space and these questions are a lot eager than just what we may see in the state's. >> the privacy issues that were discussing tonight are very important but what's also important is these platforms turned out to be enormously powerful tools in countries

where there were tremendous restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and these are rights and freedoms that many of us just take for granted here in the united states. in egypt many people first thought they kept on talking about facebook helped spark the january 25 protest and revolution. it didn't begin with an event, an invitation posted on a facebook page. the community that, where there was tremendous discussion around police brutality and abuse issues actually began in june of 2010 and that was the facebook page that was started by a group of anonymous human rights activists. one of them was y. l. go mean who was also working as the

google marketing executive, and what happened is, there was a young man who was killed by police. the police lied to his mother, first big mistake. the next thing that happened was someone in the morgue took a photograph of a cell phone of this young man's face and they put that photo up on youtube and they put the photo op on facebook in june of 2010. over the next few months, hundreds of thousands of people joined at facebook page and on that facebook page, they discussed things that they could not discuss in an internet café or really anywhere else. so i think that tonight as we talk about these very important concerns about privacy that we also remember and think about

what our founding fathers might have thought about how powerful these tools could be for promoting democracy and for promoting freedom of expression and. >> i think that is why i have advocated because what did he should do? they shut down the internet then after people who used it as a way to organize and you might think we might not have that risk here but senator lieberman has suggested kind of a kill switch and various senators have suggested all the traffic here in the united states have digital texts so they can shut it off before maybe dissenting voices so i do think it's really important and you may be surprised to learn that we are far behind other countries. estonia has a right to connect and they are guaranteed to have an internet service provider nearby to get free access to it. in another countries you can leave bumped off the internet if you have a copyright violation and you are downloading a seikh and so forth.

estonia in the rankings of freedom of the press actually ranks much higher than the united states in part because of this openness of the internet there. so it is an important democratizing tool. >> this is a perfect opportunity to get into the conversation. the social networking and the conversation on privacy and freedom of speech nothing short of future democracies around the world so it is incredibly important and lori yearbook builds to the social network constitution and a lot of questions i would love to hear about why private companies might -- but this is a great start to the conversation. can you walk us through in your book why is sensible bill towards a network constitution, some of the highlights of what that means and maybe get some of kashmir and jennifer into what could be part of that conversation? >> when we think about it, our constitutional rights and here we are sitting at the 25th

anniversary of the u.s. constitution, our rights against the government. at the countries, their constitutional rights apply to corporations as well in other countries. why should private companies even care about this? i think these constitutional rights really are based on fundamental values we all share. initially the founders of facebook said privacy, the new generation isn't going to care about it but the pew internet polls actually so they have a people care more than older people. 71% of those people 18 to 29 choose the highest privacy settings so there are two reasons why companies could care. first of all they might be regulated by places like the federal trade commission because the u.s. constitution has influenced private laws. we have private state laws and a right to privacy. we have provisions about equality and the in the

constitution that have been enacted civil rights laws so it influences private law. in addition there may be a market for privacy. look at the fact that they came along and said we are going to made it easier to divide your group so when you put up that drunken photo your boss doesn't see it only are true friends and then facebook had to modified course and allow you to create lists and so for so what i'm suggesting is a touchstone so before i'd live in iphone that has geotags i think about privacy. before new social set works are set up they also gave consideration to it and we don't get judges who say e-mails like a postcard, anytime you go on the web that's not protected but really think about things people might hold dear and private. >> kashmir can you jump in? you do a lot of coverage around the intersection of technology and businesses and folks

involved there. does it seem this seem like a real step or where? talk a little bit about your reaction. >> the thing about e-mail being a postcard i think the judge is an outlier in that speaks to one of the problems at this point and that is that a lot of judges interpreting the laws around technologies don't completely understand the technologies. many courts have found there are privacy protections around your e-mail and law enforcement can only get that, and this is kind of a complicated technological issue, but i think many judges would say e-mail is private correspondence. i mean in terms of trying to apply -- [inaudible] go on, sorry. >> we can get back to that by trying to apply constitutional rights to social networks, i mean constitutional rights are supposed to protect their rights against the government in some of the things you suggest that

you should be able to look at a person's facebook page when there may keep hiring decisions. i find that very problematic. increasingly now on social networks we kind of makes our lives altogether so we have the personal and a professional all mixed up on your facebook account and on your link to an account and businesses customers will be looking at those places so i think businesses want to think about how they are representative by their employees to see that businesses aren't allowed to look at those accounts with their customers are and judge those businesses based on how their employees appear. i feel like you are suggesting, violating the rights of businesses. >> so i would say that one of the issues first on the protections. when the courts have considered

cases where a day that aggregate, dictionary.column and consumers have gone to court and said this violates the wiretap act, the computer, the courts have actually favored visitors too much and they have said as long as one party gives consent it's okay so if dictionary.com says it's okay for marketing companies to gather and monetize my information i think that one party consent is crazy and they should be asking me. so i would change that. i think that we really are not as well protected as you think and with respect to e-mails, okay so young girls with eating disorders sued blue cross-blue shield to give them come -- to get them compensated under the psychological benefits. blue cross-blue shield said i want every e-mail sent by that girl, all her social network

places to prove it's a social disorder that has her with bulimia and the judge gave that up and any divorce case, yes you can have the entire hard drive of a spouse so all the stuff is coming in. as to its businesses i am more comfortable with an approach like we see in europe where germany is debating about whether employers could use social network information. we have finland where you can't google an employee. now they have got someone starting a facebook page in your spare and start putting things on, to make sure you are only saying that smart that smart as clever as things. i wanted open but i want to protect it. >> why do you wanted open? i'm the mother of two teenagers. trust me, i don't want their

information open. and facebook does now offer, they have learned because there was a huge backlash from users, and they have made privacy settings more transparent and as a reporter who looks at facebook pages i will tell you there are a lot more people who think they're facebook is private. i have noticed in the last year. so the tools are there for people to control and manage their information and what we need here is a massive public education campaign for parents, for educators, for people about how to use these tools responsibly. >> we are still adapting to society and still learning what it means to be exposed the way

that we are and the way we track our lives and share information on line and i absolutely agree jennifer that part of the problem here is getting everyone educated. >> should employers get the private side? right now in maryland and massachusetts massachusetts employees are saying listen if you want a job you have to tell us your password so we can go on that private side. >> there are laws governing employment in the united states. there are certain things an employer can ask and certain things an employer cannot ask. one thing an employer cannot ask your marital status so an employer cannot use that information against you in hiring decisions. >> but how do you prove it? >> but there are, do we need additional laws? i don't know. there are laws on the books right now. one story i did last summer

which opened my eyes to a lot of what information employers can gather on people, there is a social company called social intelligence and they are running their business the way a credit reporting agency runs their business. what they do is they provide employers with a social media credit report on potential employees and what they do however for employers is, they will gather every single thing that you have ever said in a chat room, posted on flickr, put up on any one of the many instagram's sites but they are very careful about, in his report, what information they provide to employers. they only provide information

that is allowed under the law to be considered in a hiring decision. >> if you go to spoke o..com and you put in your name you will see your private cell phone number matched her home and if people pay a little more money they can get things and they make no pretense of following the credit reporting laws. what has happened with that, someone sued them and they said you have everything all wrong. if they say her credit is bad when really it is good, i may not get along. i am maybe thought of this flaky by my employer. they have banner ads up that said don't you want to see what is on all the dating another

sites? 1 million people they say at day go on to this site, who to hire, hooted and sure in what credit cards to offer people and when an individual sued them and said this violates the fair credit reporting act because usually when you make a credit report about someone you have to tell them how they are doing it. the core was not impressed by that argument so as you pointed out, we have some laws but let's start applying them. one of the toughest areas for me is that we have great laws that protect medical privacy but if it's in the hands of doctors or hospitals. a lot of people posted on it and said i'm depressed and suicidal and they shared information from people separated by distance to learn step. the data aggregator posts a page and all of a sudden the patients on and started pulling down the sites.

so when i say i think they should be open i mean i think we should be allowed to be open about our ideas in a private setting. and we should not have to restrict ourselves because of what is done with that information. >> cashmere i think i heard you say there's a balance between 20 years from now we will giggle that we are having this conversation this is all very silly. >> or cry. >> or cry. maybe talk a little bit about that. this is something we will figure out because we are in a flux of institution and individuals are figuring out what is appropriate? are there some real fierce? talk a little bit about that. >> i don't know how many kids are on the internet now and the things they are posting or thinking about the fact that will still be there in 20 years and could end up playing into

future hiring for a future political plans because it's new. but in 40 years we will have nominated to the supreme court somebody who has been on facebook for most of their lives and there will be a ton of information there. i think we are already trying to see it with some of the younger candidates like crystal ball. she was running for congress in virginia and there were some photos may be of her and her late 20s and her photos got popped up from a party after college where she was with her then husband dressed as santa and her husband was dressed as rudolph the red nosed reindeer but he had something that was not a red nose on the face so it

was kind of embarrassing for her. and her reaction and that it sort of went viral, don't think that what she was slated to win that race but she was running as a democrat in a very conservative district and she did when. but her reaction to it was to say you know, this is just how we are now. we are going to have more background terry l. and some of it will be very personal. that is the future for her generation, my generation and coming generations and the challenges she could have posed the society is whether we can adapt to that and start looking at people as kind of the fuller version of them, whether our expectations of people will change so we don't expect people to live a puritanical life that we accept that people have

better human. exactly. that is the direction we are going to move in and given how much of our lives are captured on line i think that is inevitable. >> it would be great wouldn't it if there were some button you could press when you were 21 or 25 and e. race every photograph but there isn't so i think what that means for all of us, whether we are journalists, parents, educators, it's a huge responsibility, huge responsibility to, with our kids, to raise their awareness about the very simple fact that rape single thing you post could

be made public. a friend share something that you shared on your network, to send public so i do think that right now while we were in this period that kashmir described there is a huge responsibility for all of us do you know, use these tools carefully. >> technologies are coming down the pike in effect one is making sure your digital every two years so those pictures with your ex-girlfriend and so forth and i do think, you are right we are in a period a flux and i've heard that before, oh we we are all in this together and we'll all we will all have photos etc. but we have had people of blind to the supreme court and they didn't get that job. i heard that with genetics.

once our genome became public what i told was everybody has eight to 12 genetic -- and we will all be in this together and we will not discriminate but certain people feel very things are worse than your so they're still discrimination. what happens is we are in a period a flux but with every technology that i have followed whether it's genetic testing or forensic technology, initially privacy was protected and expanded. i think courts are going to come around to it like they did in cases that the supreme court handled were cops could go along the street and point a detection device at your house and i see it there were more lights on in usual to consider whether you are potentially growing marijuana. even though they didn't enter your house and they were coming at it from the street the court

eventually said that's okay, there is no violation and then eventually the supreme court said no, no, that's part of your expectation so i think we will eventually get there but a lot of damage might be done. >> absolutely. >> we want to get to questions. i want to ask one more question to the panel myself. than i want you guys to come up with some ideas and we will have questions. the microphone is over here. the last question i want to put to you, the panel is to bring us back to the concept, we are here and what would they found it others have thought about facebook with with the discussion you have had in your own take on it. obviously the founding fathers were a wide-ranging wide-ranging group of different personalities. give us the sense from lori and jennifer what the founding fathers as a group, the speech opportunities, the communication issues or terrified of --

can you give us a little walk through there? >> okay, love the frame of speech. be concerned when the chief of marketing of facebook and the former ceo of google said we have to do away with anonymity on the web because that was certainly a part of the founding principles. also upset about how it's playing out in the right to fair trial where people are actually googling back the case and posting on their facebook page the facts of the criminal case and asking to vote up or down. so i think those would be the source bots. >> i think twitter and facebook would have been really beneficial during the american revolution. these are great tools for organizing.

ben franklin used to keep a daily journal where he tracked to figure out if he was being a better person and i think we live in a society where we like this idea of tracking ourselves. i don't know anyone who would want their photo album to just disappear. that is usually our worst nightmare when your house burns down. there are so many benefits to this new technology and this idea of tracking and gathering data from our life and be able to look at it over long period of time and i think that is something technically for one would have loved. >> certainly the founding fathers would have found tremendous utility in these tools.

george washington is on the delaware and one of his guys says on facebook, oh it's pretty cold. this christmas as they had for trenton. that could have been a problem. so as lori is saying and what we are saying is a balance. there needs to be a balance and people need to recognize that these are companies with terms of service. read the terms of service for just one of the social network's that you use. and they are businesses, so awareness, education, is vital while the courts and various state legislators concerning issues lorey identified. >> let's go to the ultimate,

audience question. if folks want to walk over to the mic over here. >> well the audience makes their way to the microphone, they're a bunch of questions on twitter so i want to ask a few rough as well our audience gets ready. the practical question is the employers access our facebook page -- can employers access their facebook accounts if they are set as private and hope you guys can explain how that works and secondly the question is we are representative democracy of the social media based on direct democracy. seems the founding fathers would be skeptical of social media, no? >> lori t. want me to take the first question? >> how do they get it? they may get it from data aggregators that have scraped your account. they may get it from the companies that traffic pass

things before you took down, made private your account. there was a long time when myspace didn't have privacy settings so things have been used against people based on that but generally courts, police can get your private site but employers can't if you have current and privacy settings although some employers as i mentioned will ask for your password to get to the privacy side. >> we talked about this facebook. i don't you give us a quick walk-through of the data aggregators. i think that will answer the question what is the nefarious side of that date and how does it fit in with social web so people know what that means? >> facebook is a data aggregator. it makes $1.86 billion a year by serving as an intermediary between advertisers and the private information so if i post, i am thinking of going on a trip to florida, ads can pop up about airlines and so forth.

but some data aggregators use the web weekends, use bots to collect really a picture of the whole aspect of the web through google searches and so forth. so far the courts have not said that that's a problem so there's a lot of information that follows your travels all over and can mainly be used for marketing but now can be used for other purposes. >> a question on facebook. generally of your account is very private is hard for an employer to look at it. something that some employers have though is, sometimes you can access certain information of of the person has made it available to the network so a lot of employers used to, if they had an intern who is said and why you that in turn could ask of certain information for other people who are at nyu. so before you want to look your

privacy settings and no, make sure you know which audiences you are exposing your data to. if you're only showing it to your friends for the most part only your friends will be a lucy what what is there. >> employers would not have access to that as i understand it and if i mass ask lori so i can understand, how would police and courts get access to your private facebook data without a subpoena or a court order? >> some do it through deals with data aggregates or correct the social networks themselves. they launched a frontier project which they are looking at which exact lee what government agencies are looking at information about you and they have the manuals of the social networks like twitter to see how much they give without a subpoena. you know and so it's really very interesting because there are

these guidelines for the immigration service to pretend to be a member to find out about other people on a. >> let's jump over. the second question, did you catch that jennifer pushing us on the issue. >> our nation is based on representative democracy. the question with social media having been built as a participatory direct's and if the founders would have been skeptical of that? [inaudible] >> let's do direct questions so we can get to a bunch of them. >> guys talked a lot about what should be private and what should be private and how private should things be but a concern i have is that things are too private and we have too much anonymity it's very easy for me to sort of masquerade somebody us and cause problems for you because i can pretend that i am you. how would we address that?

>> california already has a deeper sedition law in part because of pretending to be someone else but particularly in cyberharassment cases where the parent, the mother of a rival will tend to be a 16-year-old boy. a friend, the daughter's rival and then push that person towards suicide. so i think that you know we are again balancing between freedom of expression, the importance of anonymity and the political specter and the whole cyberharassment issue. >> i will tell you on twitter their real identity is not required and in the political space and i have covered politics for a very long time and i have covered dirty tricks and i'm used to covering the

derby so i would get those calls from state troopers saying hey did you hear about so-and-so and blah blah blah and this candidate and that candidate but now what i'm seeing on twitter, it's a new forum of dirty tricks and it's all done behind these anonymous accounts. so it does create some very big problems. >> apparently there were web sites about phil spector that had a lot of information that was actually not part of the case and so the attorneys tried to get an order not allowing jurors access to twitter or the ability to tweet out. in martha stewart's -- martha stewart's trial she created a web site, very expensive web site about her daily doings to try to influence people's opinion in the case.

>> it does tend to come out and you sometimes see people's uglier sides and that is part of the kind of, the beauty and difficulty of the web. but the loss of the supply and the web. people to break laws there. oftentimes they discover they are not as autonomous as they -- a anonymous as they thought they were. you leave your ip address behind is like leaving a fingerprint and people do defame another person or break into servers. oftentimes they do get tracked it down based on the fingerprints a look behind. >> let's jump to the next question. >> what i'm going to ask ties directly into that. where i work we call it the whole notion of security through security and if someone is looking to find you they generally can prove technical

forensics and that is one thing but my question, to go to what kashmir was saying earlier about the distinction between what an employer might be looking for on the job but you are representing your employer or your organization around-the-clock 24/7. i would like to hear all three of your thoughts on what is just revkin as a news story with u.s. army troops unfortunately and the whole issue of the viral video with the taliban. whether you see a distinction between this being armed forces and sort of what the gradient is for you know going from people in the armed forces to people employed in private industry and sort of where that line moves and how that looks so the whole question of whether or not 24/7 someone's life is a representation of their

organizational affiliation? >> do you want to jump in, anybody? >> a quick background, should a cybersecurity conference that was basically off-line. >> it was the marines on the dead bodies. >> there was a video of that. >> so that, should not prevent court-martials and so forth. now what about, here's one of the issues that comes up you know. a divorce case and here's the video that was posted on the ex-husband. that court did not admit it. someone shooting ronald mcdonald in the face. if i work for a company, maybe some of the people, customers wouldn't like that. i still would allow it to be kept private. i would say you should have privacy settings. you know because, companies

don't, initially, clients didn't like the lawyers. we have got nowhere gotten over letting customers sort of run what competent people in their jobs can do, and so i am completely comfortable having this off-limits to employers who might make bad decisions. we are seeing some movement in that area. for example employers can't discriminate you based on your genetic makeup of the eeoc said okay that includes they can't can go on your face but page and see if you liked the breast cancer association or if you are saying i have got a doctor appointment for my huntington's disease and so forth. you can argue that companies might be benefited by having that. they could then choose to not

hire or promote employees who might cost them money insurance but social networks are off-limits to employers. we have now rules that the eeoc and the national labor relations board has said it's okay to say critical things about your boss on our facebook page or even your company if it's part of a concerted effort to change conditions. so we have the backbone for protecting it. i don't think it's that egregious to say keep it off limits. >> we travel around with our smartphones or our device on us and we are ice checking e-mail. we are always connected to work and on the web, we tend to move around with our employer attached to his. this is not true for everybody, but most of us list where we work on facebook, on linked

in and on twitter and whether you see it as a is a good thing or a bad thing, we have come to represent and be attached to our employers all the time. so i think this is part of the education here is you have to think about that. there will be repercussions for what you put out there and you might be fired so people need to be cognizant of that in their decision-making and what they do on line. >> at "the new york times" when i was social media editor that was a big question. should we allow our journalist to go out there and you know post on twitter or should we impose all sorts of restrictions and rules? what we realized as we have lots of rules at "the new york times." we haven't ethics guideline book like this. our journalist no, you don't put

and mccain bumper sticker or a obama yard sign in your yard so you shouldn't say i love sarah palin, i don't love sarah palin on your twitter account when you are a journalist at "the new york times." so i think there are many guidelines and rules that exist out there and we need to consider them and not necessarily make up new ones, but the most important thing that people need to remember when they are accusing these tools is you know, what your mother told you, good judgment. show good judgment. and then briefly, one, did a story a couple of weeks ago but school boards across the country imposing guidelines for teachers on facebook because for many teachers the decision to send a

student or not was a decision that many teachers were and are making all by themselves and this has been getting some teachers in trouble. what i found fascinating is some teachers unions thought -- fought back against these guidelines. they saw them as being too restrictive of freedom of expression and there is a big dispute over a new law in missouri, however some teachers unions saw this guideline and is kashmir said we are in this period of flux, the guidelines that really protected educators, that really helped them understand what was appropriate and what was not appropriate. to say and do on the social networks.

>> let's go to question. >> you mention 70% of us have our privacy protector. now is those people start to start their own startups and become the business force in america, where do you see i guess the laws coming from and where do you expect them to change to start from and because so many young people are starting their own jobs and we have a different opinion of things, don't you see that our lives are more transparent instead of facebook being judged as outside of work and insight of work? it is more looked at as this is them as a person in all their sides? >> i think some businesses unlike "the new york times" want you to be quirky and terms of having fun things up and seeing some of the younger lawyers

having on their web sites you know, tally of how much coffee they have the day which legal character on a tv show they want to be but new issues are coming out and when you were talking about both of you that the twitter audience is you have where employers are then saying we owe your audience. you can't take them with you. i think you are going to have to take face a lot of property issues in the case if you build up a huge following and then change companies, who owns that? if you're tweeting from cbs.com, you end up in a tiff with the television network as to whether you can take your followers with you. >> maybe we will go to the next question. >> high, just wanted to say i recently left facebook because every day i am reading about some case where it's being used against people in the

courts, sort of a incriminate themselves and it used to be sort of, i thought it was at gated community and then you know, my -- god on there. my daughter's classmates parents are on there, my mother-in-law is on there now. >> you don't have to be their friend. >> well, you would be surprised. you don't want to be at my house at thanksgiving, we will say that. but you said you know it would be nice if there was a big reset button you could push. yeah, that would be nice but you know facebook, they don't want to make that button and i can pressure them to make up that in. the only thing i can do is quit far i can have three friends and maximize my privacy settings and

scrub three years worth of data. so i really see nothing wrong with a law or something telling hey facebook you have to give people more control. >> i think maybe kashmir this seems to be a at the heart of the question of does the market dictate what privacy should be in the future or should there be more legislation jurisprudence? do you have any thoughts regarding that? >> this is often the response to that is if you don't like it, he feel like your privacy is being violated then just quit. and in one way i think that is valid and another way think it's difficult because we have built networks there and it's a way people communicate so if you're not there then he can't communicate. but i do think this is evolving and if we find that there are more downsides to being on facebook than there are upside, benefits, then people will leave.

and i think that will happen. there are some people who have decided to quit facebook. good luck. a lot of them come back. is hard to live without facebook i think and there is a reset button and that your account and you come back and start fresh and rebuild. >> facebook captures information tell his recent settlement where the private information center now if within 30 days so you know i think that is an important aspect. i think we might see some alternatives to facebook coming up as social networks to go back to that original idea but i do love the saturday night live sketch, oh know my mothers on facebook where the conceit is a computer probe and you can lose so if you have a beer in your hand and it turns

into a diet coke and if you are naked it turns into a t-shirt that says i heart my mom. so we do need the oh know my mom is on facebook. my son is 23 and oh know know his mom is on a spoke and twitter has a youtube channel. [laughter] >> for parents, find out if your kid is on tumbler because there is a lot more content that can be created there then some of the other networks. >> there has been myspace. my feeling is that facebook is more entrenched. it does seem to appeal to so many different generation but of course that is depending on your generation being drawn to facebook but there are so many different social networks. there are other places you can