bellyaching saber utopianism and then i used the least the internet is going to for all peoples everywhere. since then at the time i think that was pretty badly needed. and i think now with the events that have moved so rapidly and the greater surveillance and monitoring censorship has become so much the norm in so much of the world, that i think it was time much more fat based what is going on in the ground as they were sort of an effort to ..

>> on the board of directors and has written for a variety of publications including how to zero and bloomberg puts grow please

tell me to welcome rebecca mackinnon. [applause] as a professional journalist dai ask the first series of questions. rebecca, you call for a new way of looking at to internet policy is. those use the internet to to hold the government and corporations accountable. they could be as powerful with the state's with the aggressive copyright measures that were withdrawn, people feel this can work darfur coby enough to approach test could lead to government policy.

it is not as easy with corporations. what does it take to get companies to balance the drive for profits with more moral questions? >> guest: we can look as centers. in the '70s friedman wrote an essay fifth family a social responsibility was value for shareholders -- shareholders. that is when we had the first birthday with psat social awakening of sustainability and long-term generating for society and is self more than just a short-term profits but delivering value of high you are sustainable. and of products contribute

to the life and planet we want to have. with the internet, communications and internet companies, service providers, we see in a weakening with digital sustainability. it is not acceptable for companies to hire 12 year-old's. or are pollute air and water although it maximizes profits. b.a.t it is susceptible is illegitimate birth go it was more acceptably before. as we enter an era in which a aspects of our lives depend on the digital platform services or

politics if the way in which the networks are structured structured, and manage, governed, is not compatible with the values and freedoms that people risk their life for every day per . if this is to the sustainable manner that is not acceptable. >> host: are there any early examples of what online effort to in the west to be successful to change a company's policy? >> we are starting to see for instance google plus

rolling out to with the identity policy you have to use your real name. a lot of users did not like that. hoping they would be different people used the platform to lobby the management to change the policy. there now suggesting the policy to allow pseudonyms. not everybody is happy but the executives are willing to adjust and listen. that is an example when people get organized. they wanted it to be harder

for hostile governments to hack people's accounts and advising them. some definitely, there are cases pork you have people going to the company's this will increase trust and not just commercial bellevue but their environment and that is in the interest in the long run. >> host: describing an arms race with surveillance and techniques for avoiding surveillance. china is the acknowledged master.

iran has been beefing up its surveillance ability but then we have activist and revco's to obeyed, being motivated by idealism does not seem like a fair fight. how was that battle going? is there anything regular people can do? >> despite the fight we see increases with the iran and syria. it is the unfair fight for those who try to utilize the internet and ordinary everyday things.

the way the fight is right now hopes plenty of organizations in the u.s. and europe are putting similar standards out that exist for social networking company is. one of my colleagues was in brussels testifying how the tools have been used and rethink we can hold companies accountable. some regulations proposed is problematic to block a encryption technology to be exported. said now we do have that ability and there are similar issues.

syrians are prohibited from accessing commerce tools for regulations from the commerce department. but to strike a balance they don't get in the wrong hands but also having communication tools. users need to be aware, but those are aware but in the past year we have seen awareness retain -- ratings but look at the bloomberg coverage has been incredible delineating how and where

and what is going on. >> host: to follow-up, to call it the wiretappers although it is generally accessible to the public. if we look at the export issue, there are virtually no regulations preventing european countries from capable of equipment to unpleasant places because they are tools to be used for stopping porn or erred catching bad people or to spy on everybody. is there any way to change that or have greater restriction? is their public pressure on the company's?

one company does not sell machines to those on the street i know they can there was a boycott it would make a difference to the bottom line. >> there is a big difference. when you have tools, matt advocating know your customer standards. but to be transparent what they're selling and what it is used for. that is our position at the moment. i have seen other proposals that deal with other ways to handle it. but altmann may but without the shareholders. >> we are

seeing it socially responsible busters move to this sector. but in terms of the downside, there are some companies not to invest with. a lot of it is greater awareness. some have been getting away with it. for a very long time there has not been a lot of reporting on these issues. also the u.s. government and in the mass of customers of these tools are they

expressing concern you are sold the technologies to exercise some kind of influence with buying power? only buying from those who set certain standards of those who they work with? and reporting requirements? they could have standards for vendors. if you are a vendor on surveillance technology we have to know what you're doing. there is a lot that would shed light they are not

consumer products. if this is more regularly in "the wall street journal" the floor it was said. >> let me talk about the face of activism. it is entwined with the occupy movement. is an evidence but still the thing is the lobby that does

things against the law. it is hard to not sit down with the leadership but if people are annoyed with the behavior of companies or government is that nbc thing to do? >> it is interesting. we see despicable things done and then also hacking the foreign ministry. put those to deface the site to use the internet safe the and syria. it is hard to look at at and

condemn it. and those sites that cannot defend themselves. i don't think that is a good idea. but with the axe a different type of action taking route people raise their voices that might be something that lourdes could continue. >> i have got and the question allot do we fall

over the tipping point*? or we just barely there? you could see that replicated. >> >> talk about the privacy act, i agree. >> the attitude is the end justifies the means.

if the police department that violate citizens' rights but to access all the personal information on the internet and the home in -- address what problem does that fall? but then not acting intelligently a shutting down the cellphone system. but if everybody had an account, how was that resolving the problem of abuse of power by corporate entities? if king john was a bad came came, robin hood stole from

the rich to feed the polar. civil disobedience but he did not solve any problems but just stuck it to the man. he brought nothing forward. it is romantic but what problem do solve? nine. of remade to come up with a new way of governing. with the american revolution to solve the long-running entrenched problems of government. but gillian said a protest

of bad legislation and governance to figure out what are the solutions? i hear from younger people, those who have affiliations with anonymous are hacker groups that this is a war against massive abuse of power. that language scares me. i started my academic career with similar language. >> steering away from

copyright but to talk about copyright to add it -- genetically less people in america make more off of copyright? i don't know. [laughter] is there a lack of balance not just copyright or security? we have the big omnibus security bill. it mayor may not pass but it seems if follows the model it can be shortsighted technologically.

i would ask both of you to take a lack of privacy in terms of this this. >> we face a common problem with their internet related legislation around the democratic world. there is a problem with the tax on the network or child porn, cyber bullying and constituencies scream do something. and then to how that solution is going to affect the other areas.

because the internet is so new it fix the computer then it is fixed with the same contradictions in the city of san francisco you will have trade-offs that are unacceptable to think about what solutions balance other concerns highly make sure all other stakeholders are consulted? legislators are not used to thinking in those terms with the digital realm.

with the stop online privacy act and the legislation and it was one constituency without consulting with everybody else who was affected to find the other ways of solving the problem that might not be so damaging of free expression. but for those who have unacceptable burdens on internet companies. but to just have but broader conversation to come back to securities. is about lacking the criminals you will not solve the crime problem you have a community by yen or may turn

people against you. that day is high you get the buy yen from the stakeholders. whether cybersecurity, the protection, legislation still does not solve the problem. >> there are great resources into nation will announce if the government has to filter pornography. and tomorrow if it is a german they do then they have to implement the same matt system from the floor then the fear the government

will overreached that is what we saw with sopa the government blocked gain of website this that is used to overreach causing collateral damage. we see this around the world and generally speaking the digital rights groups are not consulted that is what we see with tunisia. >> i will turn it over to audience questions. this question is for rebecca. house significant is the experiment of free-speech and i slammed?

-- iceland? to raise the bar on the expression and? are there other models that look promising? i have no idea what this is about. [laughter] >> i have been advised on immi but i have not followed the progression over the last year. >> am not sure where it stands. basically a set of laws and regulatory structure that makes iceland to the haven to make it the ironclad protections against surveillance. again if it is unclear how far they have gone.

>> there is no free-speech a been. >> their those that talk about man made islands with knows jurisdiction that no nation state has the ability to demand access to servers. the problem is with any nation state constituencies demand terror be fought and people who do things to children the chased. if you do have law-enforcement access how

do you ensure that is not abused? this is the problem of democracy's struggle with. there is no model of democracy right now to get right. some countries have gotten some peace is better than others and you could cobble together the laws to say this is better but nobody has said here is the lot and regulation of combined this is what you need for digital infrastructure, corporate

behavior that this democracy compatible. here is the model. i have not seen that anywhere. we need it desperately. >> is it possible to have censorship without violating human rights? >> that is a tough one. >> people argue it is not because it is possible to have the censorship because people don't know what to you are blocking. in theory if things were perfect, you could but even

in europe and number of countries have censorship systems in place for child pornography. studies of our their mistakes of the sites ending up on the list? in most cases there is over blockage. people call it to collateral censorship. it is hired to do it complete the right. it has tough to get on the list. in the u.k. it is not mandatory but there is no watch list the most used to

block child porn and wikipedia were blocked for a while because there was the oasis album cover because somebody put that page on the list as child pornography. there are borderline cases then who decides alert exercises the power? but those were doing research on censorship of child pornography specifically does that solve the problem? with the reduction of exploitation for children? biggest not look like it is the putting a band-aid those sick people still find the ways to get it.

those kidnapping kids to exploit them still do it. it just diverts people's attention with not enough police resources going to the heart of the problem. that is the issue with censorship. and what case does it solve the problem? assuming it is legitimate in the first place. >> i would agree. i would interpret more of those softly but i don't believe it is never the solution but if you match photos in the database i feel that is a much better solution to what other governments do to force the

problem under ground. i agree i don't see that solving the problem. if we look to the united kingdom during the riots there were pushes two facebook court twitter as an example does that solve the problem our have people use other tools? now the u.k. put out another paper of censorship of extremism. the blocking of websites censorship there is not a way to do that. >> with goodyear times story the justice department has a

way to monitor reporters without approval from a judge. it seems both u.s. and china monitor the own citizens when they decide to. >> that is true with access. the differences ultimately there are a few that is true wi. the differences ultimately there are a few more controls they are all excessively loose and unaccountable. not subject to constrain. in china you can post and beyond twitter and of police man can show up to take you to detention.

to my knowledge that has not happened i know tourist posted and could not get in but that is not as bad as going to jail or torture. i think we're definitely in to recognition. if you plan to to be untraceable or not monitored to not conduct your conversation electronically or interactions. be completely analog. journalists and diplomats

you go to a meeting with the source and you don't arranged the meeting electronically. even then you may be seen. the u.s. postal service is the most secure way. with handwritten letters. the protections are clear-cut to. to read e-mail they are not clear-cut at all. effuse g-mail alert yahoo! and it is over 180 days old is fair game. because of the lot and government access goes back

to the '80s when they assume to if the mail is stored it had to be abandoned. with those national security letters issued to company is for access for someone's account and the percentage of request of dubious legality was high. and the instances in which they challenge the request was quite low. but they are not challenging on behalf of their users. if the company like at&t

collaborates with blatantly illegal surveillance, 2006 a whistle-blower who recently retired let it be known the nsa had this secret room and engineers the old communications through that room. no letters were issued it was just all put in there. others tried to sue at&t with class-action but thrown out because they are immune from liability for collaborating with blatantly illegal acts from fisa.

obama as a candidate said he wanted to overturn then decided maybe not. the administration is not favorable to revising the patriot act the there. and his lack of accountability. i have spent enough time in china to know those two organize a protest they have tiananmen square that did not go so well. there are very troubling trends. >> host: that is a pretty thorough answer.

[laughter] 1/2 been to the money the state department had to promote internet freedom? and larry clinton gave a speech. what next? [laughter] >> to give a broad overview, a lot of the money goes to tools, anonymity technology, used by people here, other countries, that i call relatively neutral. we have also seen contention and over which tools they go to and who they target.

but the broad answer is they have been incredibly useful that i have not seen a lot about plant to come i tried to find the right language but i have not found proof the money goes to the right place to make a difference. don't get me wrong but it is not a silver bullet. i believe that funding generally speaking we have

not figured out how to do that yet. >> host: in some digital companies allegedly. [laughter] build the back door into their software for the government to have access. or their vehicle restrictions? is this true? >> a lot of technologies are required to have lawful access. >> host: that is different than a back door. >> as opposed to lawful access.

>> host: there have been fears that windows comes with its own nsa ability but has that been exposed? >> [inaudible] >> adobe was hacked. there is a lot the software that the hackers exploit to access other people's computer. that is not a back door or another government required but it is so others could access user information.

>> host: of course, hiring that higher -- hacker that tried to exploit. [laughter] not knowing the intent but a number of the company is don't have safeguards in place how they deal with those from other countries. going back to why the protection is in place. reduce the company's handing over information without much consideration of the process. the then also taking down content the great study was

done recently from india anybody to request the intermediary. and submits nine request mostly american companies. seven out of nine complied and they were outrageous. not complying with free-speech principles i am not sure of this is what they ask but in order to market software in china

went into a joint venture into tom but that skype was walking everybody to text messages sending them to of homeland security bureau and there was a researcher in canada who uncover this. apparently skype had a claim that they were unaware that the company was doing something. for those have they protect the user's interest. a number of chinese companies do business and that the chinese government

may have a back door. so it is to set up mechanisms to prove we have a standard to protect a permission and ourselves to be audited and there is more trust in the network. and commerce would benefit and the network is more valuable. >> one thing that is quite the label is the insidious pressure on companies to collaborate. the most powerful tool is that companies have to cooperate that pushes the burden of censorship added

is vague and maddening and the day overreach. that is what probably drove google out of the country. trying to get companies who sign up to a year to search in best practices. but that option of facebook and others but to no more company's purchase of pay? it takes a few years to build momentum. look at to initiatives whale and gas companies, but for those to be held accountable

we launched and talking to others arranged to recognize they cannot go alone to demonstrate they are trustworthy. taking time to go through the legal department. this year going through the first year of independent assessment looking at to what extent are they living up to their commitments? the process is ongoing.

it is a test. just like 1970 earth day, with environmental standards to wake up one day to do the right thing with them shareholder movement over decades to get companies to recognize their responsibilities. but those coming from government or investors to step up to recognize there is a new component to sustainability called civil liberty. until you get of broader strong movement of the license to operate, if

accompanied can get away not being held accountable, of course, it will. it will commit to as little as us possible. it does not happen without any ecosystem. this is what revalue and what we don't. >> one accompanies that joy and more recently is webs cents. and much better than the government. but a couple years ago noticing the country and then was using their

technology to sensor political content and websense was angry i know it took awhile but they came around. in the past year with all of the surveillance exports they saw this as the right time to step up hoping they will cause other companies to step up as well. >> maybe two more questions to pending the answers. which is the individual do to make sure their privacy is protected?

>> the first upper is what harbach does book talks about. we have to start caring about this. with privacy questions of fact us. we don't think that they do. but that is where we have to push companies to join the global network. this is a matter of naming and shaming. >> definitely. public awareness, it is aware of what you are using and how that information is

shared. people use more mobile devices without to paying attention to how public-private it is. that is to educate ourselves and i just posting this on my friends facebook page? think about what you are doing and the implications. a lot of that is socialization. there was a time and nobody was used to their cars then you socialize yourself. that is part of it.

from primary school and up. >> host: one last quick question. being relatively new, advertising about individuals. to show good dog lovers as opposed to cat food but going into than middlemen auctioning the right to advertise in the split second. is that to what we find employers send? >> for those two combined the information and then be used as an investigation. >> how paranoid?

>> [laughter] we need to demand transparency and accountability and be aware. we're to the plate we have to require companies obtain more permission and are more clear how would is used and resold. so if something is abused re-enter stand who was responsible. how do constrain the abuse? sometimes it is convenient for us but not abusive for purposes we did not to

intend. >> i will not give julienne the chance to answer. [laughter] that concludes our program on behalf of the zero world affairs council. please join me in thanking rebecca mackinnon and jillian york for this excellent discussion. [applause] rebecca mackinnon "consent of the networked" is available for sale right over there. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

. . election fraud. and a lot of places, particularly in arkansas and southern state, one of the things that political policies did was in postelection would be votes late at night. people from the dead, sanitary

code from people who would guide the last two years and now is called the cemetery vote. you couldn't count the ballots until the cemetery vote. so that's the title of the book, trained to. the election and dark i think is kind of like election fraud throughout the south. and i think the cultural election fraud probably can be traced back to reconstruction can shortly after the civil war at the end of reconstruction. and in the south, arkansas and alabama and mississippi and louisiana. there is a great struggle to gain control about the merchant class, planters, business leaders in the democratic party in the south. great struggle to recapture

government at every level of the carpetbaggers, scalawags and also the newly franchised blacks who had been freed in the civil war and now became voters. so after reconstruction is a struggle to take the south back. so particularly in the 1870s in the 1880s, there was a massive struggle. in arkansas it culminated in the elections of 1888 and that is how this book, "waiting for the cemetery vote" starts, to capture the courthouse is, the state house and particularly a congressional seat. and it was such a titanic

struggle that everything went, including stealing ballots for thousands taking ballot boxes, turn them in the river, intimidating people, terrorizing people. serial numbers accord, including the republican congress from a district east of little rock. the election was stolen and he went to a little town in to investigate to investigate the fraud either were chased away or disappeared. so he went there on its own to find out what happened and he was murdered. after that, other people had been murdered to keep it quiet. and there is a kind of acceptance of that in the community because everybody understood that this was importuned, to your side won. so whatever was done to see the

right people got into office was permissible from acceptable. so in that instance, no one, although there were dozens, perhaps hundreds of people involved in all of the fraud nonetheless nobody was ever prosecuted. no one was ever punished for it and even today there are people in that community who trace their lineage back to people who were involved in not voting fraud. make great, great, great grandfather through straws to see who is going to be assassinated by john clayton. at least that is the thesis of arpa, is that became the basis of the political culture and arkansas. and why it is acceptable, never prosecuting anybody, even when they're caught stealing those, nobody's ever prosecuted because

everybody does it after all. any kind of understand why they did it. it's kind of an acceptable white-collar crime. after 1888 the democratic party in arkansas and throughout the south in the democratic party mccain, and the governing without question challenge from the reconstruction until the 1970s and 1980s that the democratic party was unchallenged in the south. and so, a lot of the fraud occurred within the democratic party. they didn't have the strength to challenge it. so it was just kind of in excess will party on the political power. it was always important that she stay in powder, there were

god-given right to govern and all of your friends and supporters hope the same way. so whatever was required to stay in power, you did it in your friends accepted that anything your enemies. the assumption is they would do it if they were in power. so they were elected that so to prosecute. arkansas is kind of off the beaten path with peninsular state. a rural state and never had much power from its inception. this kind of backward state and never the center of attention at the country. the only time park was the national attention and i was in

57 where she try to protect the integration of the central high school, setting off a constitutional crisis. on the second type of courses in 1992 when our governor was elected president. i think it anyways much diminished. you can't run serial changes. first off in the 1960s only got rid of the poll tax also in the south, which was an easy to for political classes to manipulate info. that would not in 1964. then we had a permanent voter registration system which gives some of the problems in the election fraud more difficult. and then wake up voting machines under in 1960s and 1970s analysis needed more difficult.

selections are by and large mess cleaner now. but almost every election in eastern arkansas are examples and you never quite get to the bottom of an. it goes up and down through the courts to resolve those issues, and the voter intimidation that are to prevent people from donating. and that's part of the problem now. louisiana scores has the corner on cultural politicians in the

30s. his brother in the 50s and then edwin edwards was convicted of various forms of fraud and its governor of louisiana. all of these care there's. and arkansas, we have our characters not quite as colorful a guest, at least they don't get men like the last day. but you know, chicago, politicians and other state as well. but we just haven't gotten national attention. >> now more from little rock. the tv visited the city with the help of our local cable partner, comcast is central or can. >> tells the story of nine different people from arkansas.

they were not born here, but they all lived here and were part of the story of arkansas. for example, sidney wallace who's story is fascinating because there were three different interpretations come in three different ways of explaining it. sidney lived about 100 miles upstream here in the arkansas river in a city called parksville and he was telling her story during the civil war when his father, vincent wallace a methodist minister had visitors in the last day of the year 1863 nobody knows what they said to them, but they shot and killed his father. the sydney is 12 years old, no father and his mother is now raising him and his brothers along with the help of their former slave. they were still family servants and according to one version of the stories the wallace boys ran wild after the war ended it was still wallace in western art and they were just basic outlaws. there is a shooting of a traveling salesman outside of clerks and his companion came into town and said it was those wallace boys again.

so they went out in sydney was the one they picked up and brought into town to church with this shooting, attempted robbery. at that point the jail had been burned down during the board said it was sydney and downtown building and he just kicked out the window, jumped up on the roof of the shed and escaped. that is in the shooting really started in parksville. the constable was shot dead in the county judge judge was shot dead and everyone around town said it's the wallace boys again, but there's no witnesses. finally when men stepped forward and said i sat with an ambush waiting for the constable appears they went to arrest him again, surrendered from the house and according to legend sidney escaped under the skirts of missouri playfair, the servant and the family we came down to catch him in another town and brought them back to clarksville come out at trial and convicted him of the surety of the salesman and the constable and while sidney was in prison and the case was under appeal, there was one day he was

up on the second floor. but this time it armed guards watching over him. he saw the one man who had testified in mississippi waiting in ambush, says sidney grabbed the rifle of one of his guard, pointed it at the windows shut the man who testified against him. so sidney ended up in the state penitentiary here in little rock. the cases under appeal, went to the state supreme court. the family bid for governor and the governor did want to pardon him. sydney was finally heading for those murders. now the legend sidney wallace rose from there. some people say he was in and out lie. some people say he was just hunting down the man who killed his father because they say that his servant shielded sydney when he was 12 years old purity couldn't see the people who killed his father. she was and cannot tell him they were until she was 21 years old.

so nine years later, buster the shooting started or how he was doing was coming down the murders of his father and executing justice on them. so there's a second person to make some pretty much a noble hero fighting for what was right. sydney never agree to either version of the story appeared in a court room and a prison cell talking to reporters, he consistently said he had not shot in a van a minnesotan self-defense. he claimed he was sick in bed with the measles or constable in church were shot and that's what his mother testified. though we don't know. we don't know which one to believe. >> here's a look at books being published this week your former secret special agent recounts his time protecting first lady jacqueline kennedy and the relationship to develop

a