fist-year course designed to introduce the students to the basic operation of our system. >> host: is this your first book? >> guest: it is my first book. >> host: david strauss, "the living constitution." professor strauss teaches at the university of chicago. lori andrews examines the way social media users are surveyed by a host of parties that range from employers to data services and how personal information is often collected and sold. she argues that a social network constitution is needed to protect privacy rights online. this is a little over an hour. >> tonight we tackle freedoms in the age of the social media. the founding fathers protected important rights from individual freedoms, right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, but now online 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 a case and ask their friends to vote on whether the defendant should go to jail. marketing companies are facing lawsuits for allegedly collecting information about citizens based on our travels on the web without our knowledge or consent. how would the founding fathers have handle led these scenarios? what would happen if social networking sites were subject to the bill of rights? we have a fantastic group of experts with us tonight to delve into this subject starting with lori andrews. professor andrews directs the institute for science, law and technology at illinois' institute of technology. as a law professor, her work assesses the social impact of emerging technologies. she's also a best-selling author. 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're honored that professor andrews has chosen the national

constitution center as a venue to launch this book tour. please, join professor andrews for a book signing after tonight's program in our lobby. kashmir hill is a staff writer at "forbes" where she explores the intersection of law, technology, social media and personal information on the blog "the not so private parts." before joining "forbes" hill was editor of the legal blog "above the law." she also has worked for the week and the washington examiner. jennifer preston is a taffe writer at "the new york times" where she covers the relationship of social media with politics, government, business and real life. ms. preston took on this new beat in january of 2011 after working as the newsroom's first social media editor. a veteran reporter and editor, preston began her career right here in philadelphia at the bulletin newspaper and the live in daily news -- live in daily news. moderating tonight's discussion is christopher wink, co-founder of technology news site

technically philly. a media services consultancy for the online ecosystem. he leads technically philly's transparent city open government reporting project in addition to coverage of city i.t. policy. his writings have appeared in the philadelphia business journal, the metro, "philadelphia inquirer", pittsburgh post gazette and the morning call. and now i ask you to silence your cell phones in consideration of your fellow guests, but i encourage you to use them if you'd like to tweet questions for our panel tonight. please use the hash tag pound ncc privacy. and now, without further ado, please, join me in welcoming lori, kashmir, jennifer and christopher. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. apologize for starting a little late. it turns out lapel mics are tough to put on people who don't have lapels, but we're here.

[laughter] 225 years ago the constitution was written here in philadelphia, and in subsequent years the foundation of our democracy, the communication patterns, communication patterns and issues of privacy were developed, and 225 years later new communication forms are developing new standards for that. so as stephane said, we have a great panel, and 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. >> sure. well, the founding fathers would have loved facebook, twitter and google. they were techies. they even have a clause in the constitution, the patent clause, to encourage innovation. but they also were very concerned with things like privacy, the fourth amendment, preventing the cops from going in and finding a letter in our drawer in our house. but now everything private about us is in the cloud. it's not in the drawer in our house, so i think we have to figure out ways to protect things we care about -- free speech, right to a fair trial

and so forth -- in the digital world. >> so what are we talking about? maybe start -- give some of the names of the organizations, of the services that we're talking about, and then let's bring in our other panelists. so who are retalking-- we talkig about? >> think about it, private data on 800 million people. it would be the third largest nation in the world after china and india. it has its own currency, its own economy, and it has dealings with other nations, china, so forth. and yet there's no real regulation about what is done with information about you posted on the web site of facebook. and if you think about it, 800 million people's private information if a government tried to get that, it would take laws, it would take lawyers, it would take guns, and yet we're freely giving that information out. so we're talking about that. but we're also talking about companies we've never heard of -- axiom, a data aggregator that has 1500 bits of

information on 96% of americans. we're talking about a company that made a deal with internet service providers in california to put their hardware at the internet service provider and copy and analyze every e-mail, every web search, skype search over the web. now, they're in litigation, there was just a settlement, but we've got to think about the many ways in the which our private information has now become public, monetized, potentially used against us. >> so i want to turn to kashmir. obviously, lori's talking about comparisons to nation states. it seems like the real, the beginning of this conversation about how we're comfortable with what the web entails is a reasonable expectation of privacy. and i think there are those who would suggest, well, it's ludicrous to think that. you are choosing, this is not a sovereign nation, these are choices. talk to me a little bit about kind of that feeling of

reasonable expectation of privacy, if any of us deserve it, to have it on the web and kind of where that comes from. >> um, i mean, 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're 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're talking about increasingly public forums like twitter or facebook, um, i think that there's, um, less of an expectation of privacy when you're broadcasting in a place that you know people can look at and read. ..

>> the judge actually used her facebook picture of her smiling to say she can't be that hard if she has a smile on her facebook is not asking if it was before the accident. and so, and people might think, might know enough not to drunken photos of himself on facebook. but often things, things you wouldn't think about, holding a glass of wine at a wedding.

35% of employers said they turn down job applicants because they filled a glass of wine in their hands. and you have things like people who are young, poor kids who are in charge of gang members because they were in getting to restrict that i love. i look at the los angeles police department definition of game colors. to think in hipster, all block am a new york art opening. and so i don't think we understand that seemingly innocuous pictures of us could be problematic. the woman who loses her child in a custody case because she's got a picture up on facebook. it's not knowingly giving up your privacy. yes, twitter, youtube, talking larger population. but sometimes it's makes up on you in terms of to choose your i want to get more of a dialect with an want to put this in

context. offered in the united states we're looking at facebook and twitter, we'll see it as trivial but jennifer maybe talk to us about why social media and have -- how the constitution is about and how the founding fathers might see it, how much more important social media can be seen, we are looking directly at the arab spring. you are involved in reporting to tell us about why the social space and these questions are a lot bigger than just what we may see here in the states. the privacy issues that we're discussing tonight are very important. but what's also important is these platforms turn out to be enormously powerful tools in countries that, where there were tremendous restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and these are rights and freedoms that many of us take for granted here in the united states. in egypt, many people first

thought that, they kept on talking about facebook help spark the january 25 protests and revolution. well, 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 begin in june of 2010. that was the facebook page that was started by a group of anonymous human rights activist. one of them was working as a google marketing executive. and what happened is, as a young man who was killed by police. police lied to his mother, first big mistake. the next thing that happened was

someone in the morgue took a photograph with a cell phone. this young man's battered face and they put that photo up on youtube and they put that photo up on facebook. in june of 2010. over the next few months hundreds of thousands of people joined a facebook page. and on a facebook page they discussed things that they could not discuss. in an internet café or, or really anywhere else. i think tonight if we talk about these very important concerns about privacy but we also remember and think about what our founding fathers might have thought about how powerful these tools can be for promoting democracy and for promoting freedom of expression. >> i think that's why to advocate a to connect because want to egypt to? they shut down the inner then

after people were using it as which organized. you might think we might not have that riskier but senator lieberman has suggested a kind of -- very senators have suggested all the traffic in the states have tags on it so they can shut off. people are dissenting voices. so i do think it's important. you may be surprised to learn that we're far behind other countries. and stone has a right to connect, and you're guaranteed to internet service provider nearby to get free access to a. in other countries you can be so really bumped off the internet if any copyright violation and you're downloading music and so forth. and so estonia in the rankings of freedom of press action rank much higher than the united states in part because of this openness of the internet there. so it is an important democratizing tool. >> the perfect opportunity to get into the conversation. social networking, freedom of

speech, nothing short of the future of democracies around the world. and incredible importance. laura, your book builds through your social network constitution. a lot of questions i'd love you about why private copies might type into that but i think this is a great start up conversation. incredible important communication tools. walk us through in your book why a sensible bill toward social network constitution, the highlights of what that means and we can get some other kashmir and jennifer into about being part of that conversation. >> you ask an important question. we think about it, our constitutional rights, and he we're saving 225th anniversary of the constitution, our rights against the government. other countries though, their constitutional rights apply to corporations as well. why should private companies

even care about this? i think the constitutional rights really are based on fundamental values we all share. initially the founders of facebook said privacy you're just going to get over there. the new generation, but the pew internet poll show that younger people care more than older people. 71% of those people 18-29 choose the highest privacy settings. so there are two reasons why companies could care. first of all, they might get raided by places like the federal trade commission because the u.s. constitution has influenced private laws. we have private state law of a right to privacy. we have provisions about equality in the constitution that have been been impacted, civil rights laws. so it influences private law or in addition there may be a market for privacy. look at the fact that they came along and said we're going to make each of you to divide your group so when you put up that drunken photo of your, your boss

doesn't seek him and the facebook had to modify course and allow you to create lists. so what i am just suggesting is a kind of touchstone. so before i buy an iphone that is geotagging on a, i think about privacy before new social networks are set a. they also give consideration to. we don't get judges who say e-mail is like a, anyway go on the web, that's not protected. really think about things people might hold dear and private. >> mr. canducci up in a talk, you do a lot of coverage around the intersection of businesses and folks involved the. doesn't seem like a real step forward? talk to us about the reaction? >> in terms of being a be frustrating, i think that judges and that light and the speak to on the problems at this point is that a lot of judges who interpret the law around these

technologies don't often come to understand the technology. many courts have found that our privacy protections around your e-mail. and that law enforcement can only get that for a complicated technological issue. i think many judges would say that ms private correspondence. and in terms of trying to -- [inaudible] >> go on, sorry. we can go back to. trying to find constitutional rights to social networks, i mean, constitutional rights are supposed to protect our rights against the convicts in the things you suggest that businesses shouldn't be able to look at a person's facebook page when they're making hiring decisions. i find that very problematic. increasingly now on social networks, we kind of miss our lives altogether so you the

personal and professional all mixed up on your facebook account and under lincoln account. businesses customers will be looking at those places. and selecting businesses want to think of how they represented by their employees. to say that businesses are not allowed to look at those accounts, but their customers are, and can judge those based on how their employees. no, i feel like you're kind of violating the rights of businesses. >> i would say one of the issues first on the production. when the courts have considered cases where data aggregators for cookies on your computers, dictionary.com put 233 computers -- cookies on your computer, i need to be protected. the course of actually favored

business too much and have said as long as one party gets consent it's okay. they say it's okay for marketing companies to gather and monetize my information. i think that one party consent is crazy. they should be asking me, and so i would change that. i think that we really are not as will protect you as you think that with respect to e-mail, okay, so young girls suit of blue cross blue shield to get them compensated under the psychological benefits. blue cross blue shield said i want every e-mail sent by that token everything should oppose a social network pages to prove that it's a social disorder that has are having bulimia or whatever. and the judge just gave it a. any divorce case, yes, you can have the entire hard drive of this post a so all the stuff is coming and.

and businesses, i more comfortable with an approach like we see in europe where germany is debating about whether you can use social network information. we have finland where you can't google and employ before hiring them. i love social network. i don't want to see people branding themselves, you know, where you actual hire people, you have to the rich families that hire tutors to get their kids in college provide a college essay. now you have one when a kid is starting at two, to make sure you are only saying the smartest, cleverest things that i wanted open but i want it protected. in a wide you want it open? i'm the mother of two teenagers. trust me, i don't want information open. and facebook does now offer, they have learned because there was huge backlash from users,

and they have made privacy settings more transparent. and as a reporter looks at facebook pages, i will tell you there's a lot more people who want to keep their facebook pages private in the last year. so the tools are there for people to control and manage their information. and don't, what we need here is a massive public education campaign for parents, for educators, for people about how to use these tools responsibly in the we are still adapting as a society. we are still learning what it means to be exposed the way that we are, the way that we track our lives and share information online. and i do, i absolutely agree that part of the problem here is getting everyone educated in

terms of -- >> but should impose get the private sector was right now in maryland, massachusetts employers are saying listen, if you want a job you have to tell us your passwords we can go on that private side. >> bottom line is, that are laws governing any essays. there are certain things employers can ask answer the simplest cannot as. an employer cannot ask your marital status. so an employer cannot use that information against you in a hiring decision. if that employ -- >> but how do you prove a? >> but there are -- do we need additional loss? i don't know. there are laws on the books right now. one story i did last summer, which was, opened my eyes to a lot of what information employers can gather on people, there's a startup company called social intelligence, and they're

running their business like the way a credit reporting agency runs their business. so what they do is they provide employers with, like a social media credit, like report come on potential employees. and what they do, however, for employers is that you'll gather every single thing that you have ever said in a chat room, posted on flickr, put up on any one of the many like instant grants, photo sharing sites. but they are very careful about, in this report, what information they provide to employers that they only provide information that is allowed under the law, under the law to be considered in a hiring decision. so then, put in your name and

you see your private cell phone number, generate a map to house, and then they can escalate that the how good your credit is that if you get people paying a little more a month, you can get things that you post on social networks. and they make no pretense of following the credit recording laws. and so what's happened with that, someone see them and said you've got everything all wrong about me wrong about me. you can think about it if they say laurie andrews, her credit is bad, i might not get a loan. i might be thought of as this flaky by employers. they put banner ads at this age our research, touch wood see what's on all the dating and other sites that your potential -- a million people they say a day go on this site who to with her to hire. who to ensure. what credit cards to offer people. and what individual sentiments

and hey, this violate the fair credit reporting act because usually if you make a credit assessment about someone, you have to tell them you're doing it, have a right to correct, and the court was not impressed by that argument. and so we need to come as you pointed out and we have some loss but let's start applying them. one of the toughest areas for me is that with great loss that protect medical privacy, but if it's enhance of doctors or hospitals it so that the website, patients like an odd people said i depressed suicidal, alzheimer's. and they shared information. so people separated could learn stuff. nielsen, a data aggregate, have thoughts, collect everybody's information and all of a sudden the patients on and start pulling down their sites but they're losing the benefit. so when i said think we should be open, i mean i think we should be allowed to be open about our ideas in a private setting. it should not be have to

restrict ourselves because of the fear of what's done with that information. >> something i think i heard you, i think something other folks we we think you there is a bounty of whether we're just going to appear to flocks like you said, and 20 us in a little giggle we were having this conversation and this was all a silly gimmick or cry or sob in baby talk about that. is this overhyped? kids will figure out what's natural, or are there some real fears here? talk about that. >> is interesting. i don't know how kids you are on the internet now and things are posting i think about the fact that will still be a 20 years. and could end up playing into, into future hiring over their future political lens. because it's a new.

but in 40 years we will have somebody nominate to the supreme court who will have a facebook for most of their life. and there will be a ton of information there. i think now i'll resort to deal with some of the younger political candidates, like kristol, she was running for congress in virginia, and there were some photos, i think she's in her maybe late '20s, and there were some photos that popped up from a party after college where she was there 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 his face. that was kind of embarrassing for her. and her reaction, and those photos went viral, and i don't think that she was slated to win that race but she was running as

a democrat in a very conservative district, and she didn't win. but her reaction to it was to say, you know, this is how we are now. we are going to have more background material. and some of it will be very personal. and that is the future for her generation, my generation and coming generation. and the challenge she posed for society is we can adapt to that and start looking at the kind of fuller version of them, whether our expectations of people will change so that we don't expect people to live kind of puritanical lives so that we accept that people, you know, have -- are human, exactly. and i think it is the direction were going to move income and given how, how much of our life

are captions -- after a life to i think it is a nibble. >> it would be great, wouldn't, if there was something you could press when you were 21 or 25 and just like the race every photograph of you with a red cup or in some inappropriate -- but there is a. and so i think that what that means for all of us, you know, whether we are journalists, parents, educators, it's a huge responsibility, a huge responsibility, you know, with our kids to raise their awareness about the very simple fact every single thing you post could be made public if you have very tight privacy, if a friend shares something that you shared on your network. it's been public.

and so i do think that right now when we're in this period, which kashmir described, there she is responsibly for all of us do, you know, use these tools carefully. >> suntech coaches are coming down the pipe. in fact, one which is designed to make sure your digital photos delete in a fierce pictures of you with your ex-girlfriend and so forth, and i do think, in the coming year a period of passionate what happened in other areas, i've heard that before, we're all in this together and we'll all have the red cup photos, et cetera. but we have had people applying to frequent because they smoke pot like everybody of that generation, he didn't get that job. and i heard that with genetics. once our genome became public, what i was told was everybody has eight to 12 genetic defects.

will all be together the we will not discriminate. but certain people feel their things are worse than yours. so there's still discriminate. instead what happened where any period of flux but with every technology that i followed whether it's genetic testing or frantic technologies, a nation a lot of stuff was used to and then privacy was protected and expanded the so i think courts will come around to it like they did in cases the supreme court handled where cops could go along the street and point heat detection device at your house and see if there were more lights on then usual to determine whether you are attention to growing marijuana. and even though they didn't into your house and they're coming at it from the streets, initially courts said that's okay, there's no fourth amendment violation. and eventually the supreme court said no, no, that's part of your expectation of privacy. i think we will eventually get there, but a lot of damage might

be done it absolutely. >> a lot more, we want to get to questions i want to ask one more question of the panel myself, selfishly. but then i think you want to check if your questions, the microphone is over. last question i want to put to you, the panel, to bring us back to the concept, we are here, what with the founding fathers have thought about facebook go with a discussion we've had, kind of your own take on it, so the founding fathers were different process, different taste, kind of give us a sense starting with laurie moving to jennifer, would the founding fathers as a group love the freedom of speech opportunities communication issues, or been terrified of privacy? maybe give us a little walk through their. >> okay. love the freedom of speech, arab spring. be concerned when the chief of

marketing a facebook and when the former ceo of google said we've got to do a way 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 rights of fair trial where people are actually googling facts of the case and posted on a facebook page the facts of the criminal case and asking their friends to vote up or down, even though you're only supposed to consider things going on in the courtroom and not outside things. so i think those would be a sore spot for the founders be back kashmir? >> i think twitter and facebook would've been really beneficial and useful during the american revolution. these are great tools for organizing. ben franklin used a daily journal where he tracked his virtues to figure out, get a, if he was being a better person. and i think we live in a society

that where we like this idea of archiving and tracking ourselves. i know, laura, you're talking about is to afford getting data date and having it automatically expire. i don't know of anyone who would want their photo albums to just disappear into this. that is usually kind of our worst nightmare when your house burns down and use precious photos. but i think there are so many benefits to these new technologies, and this idea of tracking and gathering data from our lives, be able to look out over a long period of time. and i think that's something that's been franklin for one would have loved to a certain extent. pic i think certainly the founding fathers would've found tremendous gratuity in these tools, except george washington crossing the delaware and one of his guys says on facebook, it's pretty cold. this christmas as they headed toward trend, and alerting these

other guys in trenton. that could've been a problem. so as laurie has been saying and i think that what we are all saying is that ballots, there needs to be a balance. people need to recognize these are companies with the terms of service. read the terms of service. for just one of the social networks that use. they are businesses. awareness, education is a vital, while the courts and various state legislators are wrestling this very important issue that lori has identified. >> so let's go to the ultimate communicator device, let's go to the audience questions now. folks can walk over to the mic here to my right. >> while our audience makes the way to the microphone, you are a bunch of questions are on

twitter such as what asked to request -- to real fast. the first is a practical question, the second is more theoretical. can't employers access our facebook accounts if they are set as private? hopefully you guys can point how that works. and secondly, question is what i represent democracy but socially is based on participatory direct democracy but it's in the founding fathers would be skeptical of social media, no? >> lorry coming to me to take the first question about -- >> they may get it from data aggregators. they may get from the sort of companies that traffic in passing before you took down, yeah, me private year again. there was a long time when myspace didn't have privacy settings, and to think that been used against people based on that. but generally, you know, courts, police can get your private side, but employers can't get

current privacy settings, although some employers as i mentioned will ask for your password to get to the privacy side. >> we talked about facebook. it was a quick walk through data aggregate. that may answer other questions. what is the real nefarious side of that aggravation? so kind of people no one that means dick facebook is a sickly a daily agitator. serves as an intermediary between advertisers and your private information to so if i post, you know, i'm thinking of going on a trip to florida, adds pop-up about airlines and so forth. by some aggregators use, you know, thanks to collect really a picture of you of all aspects of the web, your google searches, and so forth.

and so far courts have not said that's a problem. so there's a lot of information that follows your travel all over. and may be used for marketing but now increasingly being used for other purposes. >> generally i if you get a very private it's hard for an employer to look at it. something that some employers have done, sometimes you can access certain information if a person has made it available to the network or to something a lot of employers should do is, if they had an intern, that in turn can act certain information for other people. so this is again as jennifer was income you want to look at your privacy settings and no, make sure you know which audiences you are associated with. if you're only showing a difference than the most part only of france are going to build to see what is their. >> employers would not have access to that. if i understand.

and how would police, if i may ask lori so i can understand, so how would police and courts get access to your private facebook data without a subpoena or court order? >> some do it through, some go right to the social networks themselves. the frontier foundation has a big project which are looking at exactly what government agencies are looking at information about you. and they have the manual to see how much they give without a subpoena. it's really very, very interesting because there are these guidelines for immigration service, pretend to be a member to find out about other people ought it. let's jump over. the second question though was on, was pushing us on the issue, do you still have the? they're pushing on --

>> our nation being represent democracy. the question with social media having been built as participatory direct democracy, it seems the founders would be skeptical. >> yes, especially if women jumped into the conversation. [laughter] i think the panel and with thumbs up. be the let's do kind of direct questions so we can get to a whole bunch of them pick you guys talked a lot about what should be private and what shouldn't be private, how private thing should be. a concern i had is if things are sort to private and with too much anonymity it's very easy for me to serve as great as somebody else to cause problems for you because i can pretend i am you. how would we address that? >> i think every newspaper comment moderate which it appeared california hasn't impersonation will end in the is because pretending to be someone else. but continually in cyber harassment cases, where the

parent of a rival, the mother of the rival were pretend to be a 15 year-old boy, a friend, a daughter's rival. at first pretended interested 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 political specter, and then the whole cyber harassment issue. >> i will tell you, on twitter their real identity is not required it and in the political space, and that covers politics for very long time and i've covered, you know, dirty tricks and i used to cover new jersey -- [laughter] so i would get those calls like from former new jersey state troopers say hey, you know, did you hear about so-and-so and blah, blah, blah, this can do and that can be. now what i've seen on twitter is, it's a new form of dirty

tricks, and it's all done behind the anonymous accounts. so it does create some very big problems in a trial problems, too. apparently there was things about phil spector they had a lot of faith that was not part of the case. and so the attorneys tried to get an older not allowing jurors to access to twitter or, you know, the ability to tweak out. martha stewart struck him she immediately a website, no, very, very expensive website about her daily doings, try to influence people's opinion in the case. >> i think it does come up, and you sometimes the people, uglier side, and that's part of the beauty and difficulty of the web. but, you know, the fly and the

weather and what people do break laws come oftentimes they discovered they are not as anonymous as they thought they were. i mean, our activities are tracked. you leave your ip address to it's like leaving a fingerprint. and so when people do defend another person, or break into servers, oftentimes they do get tracked down based on the finger prints they left behind. if let's jump to the next question. i notice you had your hand up a whopper. >> what i'm going to ask ties directly into the before i work recall that the whole notion of security -- if so it is kind of funny they generally can. but my question though, to what jennifer was saying earlier about sort of the distinction between what an appointment be looking for on the job, but you're representing your

employer or your organization around the clock 24/7 but i'd like to hear all three of your thoughts on what has just broken as a news story with u.s. army troops, unfortunately, and the whole issue of the viral video with the taliban, and what, what you see a distinction between this being armed forces and sort of what ingredient is communist, going from people are employed in armed forces to private industry, and sort of where that line is and how that looks so that the whole question of whether or not 24/7 isn't a representation of their organizational representation in a jump in, anybody. >> can we quick background on the story that broke today? i was the cybersecurity -- was basically off-line. it was marines urinating undead

afghan bodies. and there was a video of that. >> and so, you know, that's, you know, shouldn't present court-martials and so forth. now, what about, here's one of the issues, you know, tort case, here's the video that was posted by the ex-husband that the court did not admit someone should iran's economy in the face. now, if i worked 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. because companies don't, you know, initially clients didn't like women lawyers. they thought they didn't present as will incorporate we've gotten over leading customers sort of run what competent people in their jobs can do. and so, i'm completely

comfortable having this off limits to where might make bad decisions where things are some movement in that area. for example, employers can't discriminate against you based on your genetic makeup. but the eoc just recently said okay, that includes they can't go on your facebook page and see if you liked the breast cancer association, or if you're saying i've got a doctors appointment for my huntington's disease and so forth. now, you can argue that companies might be benefited by having the. they then could choose not to hire or promote employees who might cost them money and interest. but we social networks are off limits to employers in that setting. we have no rules that they eoc and the national labour's relation board have said it's

okay to say critical things about your boss on your facebook page, or even your company, if it's a part of a concerted sort of lobbying effort to change condition. so we have the backbone for protecting it. i do think it's that big of a leap just to say it's off limits. >> i think the reality of the new world is bad, we travel around our smartphones or device on us, always checking e-mail. we're always been connected to work. and on the web when we're moving around, we tend to move around without employer attached to street and it's it's not true for everybody, but most of us list were work on facebook, on lincoln, on twitter. and we kind of, whether you see as a good thing or a bad thing, we have come to represent and be attached to our employers all of the time. and 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 get fired. people need to be cognizant of that in their decision-making and what they do online. >> well, at "the new york times" when i was social media editor, that was a big question, should we allow our journalists to go out there and post on twitter, or should we impose all sorts of restrictions and rules? what we realize is we have lots of rules at "the new york times." we have an ethics guideline book like this to our journalists know you don't put a mccain bumper sticker or an obama one, lawn 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're a journalist at "the new york times." so i think that there are many guidelines and rules, you know, that exist out there. and we need to not necessarily make up new ones. but the most important thing that people need to remember when they are using these tools is, you know, what your mother told you. good judgment. you know, show good judgment. and then briefly one, i did a story a couple weeks ago about imposing guidelines for teachers on facebook. because for many teachers a decision to friend a student or not was a decision that many teachers were and are making all by themselves. and it has been getting some teachers in trouble. what i found fascinating is some teachers union hot back against

these guidelines. they saw them as being too restrictive, freedom of expression, and it was a big dispute over a law in missouri. however, some teachers unions saw these guidelines, kashmir said we're in this period of flux, as being guidelines that really protected educators. that really helped them understand what was appropriate and what was not appropriate to say and do on these social networks. >> you mentioned about 70% of youth have privacy protection but that makes sense because that makes sense that it was taking photos, partying and getting drug imposing a facebook. that was those folks start their own startups and become the business force in america, where

do you see i guess loss coming from and where do you suspect the change to start from? and because so many young people are starting their own job and we're a different opinion of things, don't you see that our lives are more transparent instead of facebook being judged as this is, you know, outside, this is more as a person? >> i think in fact some businesses, unlike the new your times, want you to record, in terms of having fun things. i've seen some of the younger lawyers having on their website, you know, a tally of how much coffee they have in the day, which legal character in a tv show they want to be. but new issues are coming out. when you're talking about the twitter audience that you have, where employers are they saying we own your audience, you can't

take them with you. and i think you're going to have to face a lot of the central property issues that this generation has an entrance of if you build up huge following and you change companies, who owns that? if you are tweeting from cbs.com. you end up in a 10th with television network as to whether you can take your followers with you. >> i just wanted to say that i recently left a facebook because every day i'm reading about some case what is being used against people in the courts, sort of they incriminate themselves and they can't plead the fifth. and it used to be sort of, i thought it was a gated community. and then, you know, my aunt got on their --

[laughter] my daughter's classmates parents are on there. my mother in law is on their now. so speak to you don't have to be their friend. >> you don't want to be at my house at a skinny, we will say that. but you said it would be nice if there was a big reset button you can push yeah, that would be nice. but facebook has no, they don't want to make that. and i can't pressure them to making a making a button to go thing i can do is quit or i can have three friends and maximize my privacy settings and scrub three years worth of data. so i really see nothing wrong with the law or something telling a facebook, you have to give people more control. >> i think this has to be at the heart of the question. is this the market dictating to

osha to be more current legislation jurisprudence? any thoughts? do we all need to leave facebook if we're concerned? >> this is often the response of that is if you don't like it, if you like your privacy is being violated, then just quit. in one way i think that is now. and another what i think it's difficult because we have built networks, and it's way people communicate. so if you're not there then you can't communicate. but i do think that as society, this is evolving, and if we find that there are more downsides to being on facebook and there are upsets, benefits, then people will leave. i think that will happen. there are some people have decided to quit facebook, good luck. a lot of them come back. it's hard to live without facebook, i think. and it is a reset button in that

you did your account. when you do come back you can start fresh and rebuild. >> may just be that facebook capture information until this recent settlement with the electronic privacy information center makes them a few quick, delete within 30 days. and so i think, you, and important aspect of the i think we might see some alternatives to facebook coming up as social networks go back to the original idea. but i do look at the "saturday night live" skit, oh, no, my mom is on facebook. the computer program you could use so that if you have a beer in your head it turns into like a diet coke, and if you're like me get it turns into a t-shirt that says i heart my mom. and so, so we do need those. i have a son is 20 and oh, no, his palms on facebook and twitter and has her own youtube

channel. of course, they -- >> about tumbler and for parents, find out if your kid is on tumbler because there's a lot more content that can be created there. been on some of the other networks. >> there has been myspace pic my feeling is facebook is more entrenched. it does seem to have a go to some a different generation. but, of course, that's depend on newer generations also been drawn to face but the there are some a different social networks there are places you can go to have a more private space or more private social network. so maybe people just are doing different things in different places and that way they can keep their identity somewhat separate. >> i've been alerted to our five minutes left. lightning round.

social capital -- >> 140 characters. >> similar situation but if you go back far enough, health care and your private information about your health was not necessarily restricted i love. yet hippa came out and all the information is presented i law to be released. why couldn't a similar situation be developed here? although it is somewhat different, you're providing the information per se on facebook with health information, when you get a hospital or doctor's office, yet that is pretty tightly controlled, and i think really effective. couldn't something like that be implemented in these situations? >> i mean, it could be an especially since singh and overlap where people post information about their health. the types of information people post are the types of information about relationships,

sexuality, sexual preference, political, you know, interest and so forth that we, in the past have most stringently protected under privacy laws. and so, you know, there is an argument that you have an expectation of privacy in facebook because you're asked to friend people. it's not like writing messages on a bathroom wall. you get the impression you're talking to a small group, and so i actually see the privacy evolving to cover social networks. >> i think it's very ironic that once the data are aggregated, they have very large commercial value. lots of time is making lots of money, but then nothing of that trickles down to the people who they are concerned with. or where they originate. remember, the department of

motor vehicles, sales or certainly sort, data about what kind of cars people owned. this was before facebook, et cetera. and i thought it was an outrage at that time. so the point is really how about the commercial aspect of how it shapes the data? don't these data belong to me instead of the company that sells it freely? shouldn't they ask? shouldn't they pay me for that? there is a value that they actually have. it's my little. >> there is a company in great britain that allows you to profit from the aggregators. and even though it's like part of -- that you get -- [inaudible] put a damper on this whole thing because as i say, in order for me to sell certain things about myself, you have to pay