polarization. internally they become more unified, and that's that happened we are seeing less competition, less intraparty fighting over the nomination. and in terms of this coalition coalescence, what i argued is that a more unified party should be able to figure out and coalesce earlier before the caucuses and primaries ever began, a more divided party that's going to be a very very tough challenge. so as the republican party, if they are unraveling in the wake of the george w. bush administration, they're going to see a much harder time coalescing behind candidates before the caucuses and primaries begin. and i think we see that in 2008. we see it in 2012 to a lesser extent. and i think we'll see it in 2016. ..

and what i know here, if we look at the democratic races, a great deal of their competitive races have occurred when the candidate is leading in national polls readers for the election. so right now doesn't run. ted kennedy in 1972 and again in 1970s pics three years before the primaries he was the leading candidate. he didn't run. gary hart dropped out in 1997.

mario cuomo didn't run in 1992. hillary clinton didn't run in 2004. and each of those democratic years wound up being more competitive. we see a whole lot less agreement among party insiders. i'm not showing it in this paper, but the endorsement data for these elections is a lot less consensus among democrats. they are dividing their support among different candidates, but also importantly much more of the democratic party establishment spits out. they don't make an endorsement at all. we see that in the republican side of it in 2008 and 2012. for republicans in those years mitt romney, for example, was the consensus pick of the establishment. very little of the establishment was in that year. they waited to the caucuses and primaries began. the parties decide among the candidates to run.

they look at presidential nominations, which is an interactive process. sometimes the coalition really occurs and sometimes it's going to happen during the primaries. [inaudible] >> our next paper is called scandalous resurgence. politics of recovery. it's presented by jeff smith of the new school and david meier daily costs. who are your additional -- >> that's me. hendrix college. >> thank you very much. we know that in the study of american politics there has been, of course, increasing literature developed around the politics of scandal. early on a lot of this literature focused at the presidential level and really centered on the media dynamics that created an environment ripe

for scandal. more recently moving below the presidential level, we are seeing more and more research including as cases proliferate quantitative nature that really thinks through what scandalous matter the most in terms of electoral impacts, what is the lingering effects of the scandals across time. another scandalous matter most to candidates who try to stay in office initially and that receives across time. we also know increasingly which scandals have the biggest impact in terms of the electoral process of candidates. we look at the different question. this is of course a question, an issue that is getting increasing attention. they leave the elect will seem because of scandals and try to come back at a later date. this is what we call the politics of recovery. this is something worth caring about because of its increasing

commonality and the cause of some of the dynamics of last year. i think secondly because scandalous past comes back into politics committed media environment is simply dominated by the candidate and dynamics around that candle. so that is the question that we look at in this paper. there we go. we hypothesized that three forces really matter the most in shaping the politics of recovery. that is whether a candidate, who tries to come back and succeed or fail. these three season include first and foremost context. the electoral context in which that candidate seeks to recover. context takes on a lot of different dimensions.

perhaps the most important is the composition of the district environment in which the candidate tries to come back. we think the candidate could only come back if he or she had the advantage of partisan wind at their backs in a district. it's not just about party. it is also about ideology and certainly districts dominated by one party or the other of important ideological flavors that may be particularly advantageous or at least not disadvantageous to the same degree to scandal laden candidates. we all know geography matters enormously in shaping the outcome for races, specifically in the candidate with the scandalous past really has some ongoing geographical connection to a place. context also is driven by the social context of an

environment, especially the composition of that district that may be racially or ethnically homogenous they are religiously homogenous. we know in politics, context always matters. the three of us lost elections. the context is very important. we think that context matters a lot more in general pieces than in other cases. secondly, we know that the nature of the scandals themselves matter. that from previous research. we made the case in this paper that what matters just as much and perhaps even more is the way in which the candidate grapples with scandalous love as they present themselves to voters. our initial hypothesis focused heavily on the need for ongoing and genuine contrition on the part of candidate. but as we'll talk about we can to find that while contrition matters enormous leave it in

context that a different kind of reaction to the scandal a form of combativeness may actually be as effective as the candidate faces the voting public that knows about his or hers candle. finally, the third hypothesis we have is about the way in which candidates run campaigns. and we think that more than other elections where money organization, the other traditional measures of a candidate success matter. in these cases we believe the candidates ability to personally connect with voters, to indeed go over to the media and in ways in which money is fairly irrelevant are incredibly important. so a candidate's personal charisma and a candidates

credibility as they face the voters crucially important in these races in ways they are not another. i'm going to turn it over to david who will talk a little bit about how to come up with cases and then we are all going to talk a little bit about these cases. >> so as jane mentioned, the politics of recovery seem to be of increasing importance. it was the example of weiner, spitzer and stand are dead to us to this topic in the first place. we wanted to see how often this kind of example have occurred in the past. it hasn't been the most frequent surrogate variance to see if a candidate had to leave office because of scandal take time off and attempt to come back. we tried an interesting experiment. we try to crowd versus part of this research on the website daily kos where i work. we explain their conditions for the situations we were hoping to

look at. this is the universe of candidates we came up with. rebounded are self-limiting to congress, senators governors and a statewide elected officials and we certainly welcome any examples we have not managed to encounter on this list here. we did not want to limit ourselves in early to the trio mentioned in the title of the paper. we were looking for greater variance in the case studies we want to engage in. this list of research here come in the list names here how fast to guide our focus and we chose alcee hastings, who is an impeach federal in florida, the former mayor of d.c. and mal reynolds a farmer member of congress in illinois because we felt these examples particularly along all three of the variables

we cited offered real variance for us compared with spitzer weiner and stanford examples. jeff is going to talk about the latter three cases. >> thanks very much, david. can make that real quick. thanks. so i am going to talk about the three african-american cases. beriberi alfred hastings and mal reynolds, a former congressman of chicago. first to know we are going to talk about the variables. after i finish talking about those three, table talk about the new york cases and stanford. the context -- one of the most important aspects is what kind of greasy cheese in in your comeback race which is the most important one. the three candidate that i researched. of the three one of them made a

brilliant strategic vision and choosing the comeback race. one kind of got up on the first time. the second comeback attempt in the third made two big errors in its comeback. marion berry had been a three term mayor of washington d.c. when he came back he ran for city council. he could either run for an at-large council seat or he could run in his home base, which was where he originally nurtured his political ties back in the early 1970s. not coincidentally, that district is also the poorest ward in washington and the most overwhelmingly black. he believed and apparently wisely that he would find the most sympathetic audience for his return.

and ended up going on to be elected mayor after that. that probably wouldn't have happened had he chosen to run for mayor in his first time back out. second case, alcee hastings probably made a mistake his first time back. he ran a statewide primary for secretary of state in florida. one of the reasons those difficult again, races i think pre-emanate here. florida statewide is about a 20% african-american date. democratic primary electorate tends to be between 25 and 29% african-american. in his first secretary of state his percentage pretty much trended -- pretty much was right about the percentage of african-americans in the electorate according to exit polls. in the runoff come he didn't move at all. he finished second in the original primary. his second race he ran in a

majority black congressional district was more successful and was seated in the house of representatives in 1992, where two thirds of his colleagues had just voted to impeach him. so that's pretty interesting. the third case unlike mary ann airey, he did not put down his level. he ran for congress to the same ctf laws. i'm not sure if we've mentioned at the out that company is having an affair come a too year-long affair with a 15-year-old campaign volunteer. that was not easily forgiven. he came back in his seat and try to run for his former congressional seat and only 16% of the vote. the next important variable is contrition first combativeness. one other thing -- the african american candidates were elected

out of the six tended to be one the side of combativeness. we had a lot of theory of why that is more successful. more combative than contrite. mary ann berry was the most contrite. you might remember his famous line upon being caught on videotape. he said the set me up. he was actually more contrite than the other two candidates reflect that. so if that provides some context. mel reynolds vaguely alluded to some mistakes that he had made. alcee hastings said he never made any mistakes at all, even though the house of representatives documents enough evidence that he took $150,000 in bribes as they voted 413 to three com a democratic majority house of representatives. and then he was convicted. that was kind of icted.

that was kind of the levels of contrition and combativeness under the trio looked at. finally, personal credibility. marion barry had 20 years of experience in the civil rights movement in nashville, helping organize lunch counterfeited been in washington d.c. after the riot he was one of the leading figures in driving trucks, delivering food throughout southeast washington d.c. he had a turn on this amount of credibility from community and have it work. that really put him in good standing when it was time for his comeback. hastings had come the e-mail, a decent amount of charisma and personal credibility based on his work. mel reynolds clearly had the least and most probably a critical fact or that led to his poor outcome to his comeback. as opposed to a steam and berry,

who had been leaders before they ran for office, reynolds was a rose color. he didn't have to community ties yet he was seen as an outsider when he first ran in a primary against an incumbent who had been in the scandal. and so clearly scored lower on the charisma and personal credibility scale than the other two. >> so we can actually may be starting throwback to the last fight and work our way back. so for weiner and it's here spitzer started off with a lot of credibility in his race for city controller. mostly having to do with his work as attorney general when he became the sheriff of false tree. he was very eager to forget and talk about his brief disastrous one-year term as governor. weiner was a very out spoken msnbc tie progress who is capable of commanding a lot of

the media attention and relating back to the context in which he was running against a field that hadn't really gelled for new york city mayor in a democratic primary. noah had caught fire. no one was exciting voters. the moment the weiner jumped into the race, he instantly caught fire shut the top of the polls, based entirely on his name recognition and the media circus that grounded him. that was enough to initially buoy him that was a lot like the 2012 republican nomination for the president, where the media into a certain extent voters, at least expressed by polls kind of jumped on the flavor of the month. anthony weiner for literally a month or two months was in fact the flavor of the month. spitzer was running against manhattan president scott stringer, who is a colorless politician not very prominent. the other factor here is

stringer pretty much expected a coronation. he had no opposition. spitzer got a and that the filing deadline and seem to think he could take advantage of stringer's lack of preparation. but getting back again to the context of this race i'm a pretty much the entire city establishment across the remarkable spectrum was against the other. it is pretty rare you have the entire labor movement from which very much like scott during her and wall street in the business immunity, which couldn't stand but there thinks to his crusading activism on the same side and on top of that newspaper endorsed it all went to stringer. so in a way spitzer wound up writing more than he could chew. if we could flip back to the contrition versus combative as no should. for weiner, weiner definitely try to present himself as having

a tall and, definitely been contrite and having gotten past the scandal that forced him to resign from congress to begin with. he sort of made it seem like it was all in his past. he did this glowing interview with his wife that appeared to the new york "time" magazine that he turned over a new leaf. of course, that turned out not to be about the case in the contrition routine will totally fail if you are a recidivist. weiner wound up looking like a junkie who kept promise and he had quit only two actually still be getting high. once voters started to realize that come he absolutely created the polls and wound up finishing in fifth place behind a candidate whose campaign finance director had been indicted for campaign ran its fraud. he wound up a total failure. spitzer was right in the middle on this chart. i think that's system quite

well. spitzer did not really seem quite willing to be contrite but he played up his combativeness and not particularly succeeded among the black community the problem that the black community share of the vote wound up being twos malt. q. so four points short of stringer. >> will come back to context if we need to want not. but talk a little bit about sandford. context crucially important to the success. heavily republican district in south carolina. importantly district where business conservatives really dominate, a very well educated district. it was a perfect fit. i think, ideologically for mark sanford. in addition he had represented that area in congress. most of that area had been redrawn and he exceeded expectations in the part of the

district where he represented e4. he performed poorly in most parts of the district which has not been part of the original congressional district. in addition, one thing especially the environment with his anti-washington or antigovernment sentiment, the fact you combat this candle can really present you with an outsider. stanford did a particularly good job of playing up on that. he was all contrite all the time from his introduction in a television ad his media rollout was ongoing can or should. there were subtle allusions and also a real emphasis on the normalization of what had happened with him and jimmy sandford. i was there at the beginning that became very important after jenny sanford's charges about his arrival at the home to watch the super bowl and the fact that

marriages just have problems and divorced couples have problems and this is an ongoing challenge. but he was very contrite throughout. most importantly, most importantly mark sanford had always been a tv candidate. a candidate who believed deeply in the power of television and voters. he moved away from that dramatically in this campaign. he became the guy who went out with a staffer, drove all over the district and emphasize personal connections with voters. that was a 180 in terms of who he was as a candidate in the folks who work within really see that as the secret to his success early this year in coming back. and so we have the six cases. they are big. it's a long paper. we are grappling with how to get a little control over this complicated topic we think is increasingly common topic in american politics.

[inaudible] >> we are going to open it up to questions. i do ask that you read until you have a microphone in front. potentially for c-span. let me see if i can -- do we have another making the audience? basically, everybody's under the same rules. but until the mic is in front of your face. you've described to varying degrees a rule or lack of role for political party. even if sex scandals the party had deliberately in most cases stepped away from it all and said if you are going to come back, come back without our help. you have everything from civil servant to the citizens united decision. it seems to be making it less and less relevant.

what do you see that says that the party camp are doing anything other than rearranging on the titanic? it's an open question. jump in. >> well, i how parties can i would say our paper is an example of how parties can be very much involved in an environment that is somewhat hostile to them. the reforms in california come up and top two primary was designed to weaken the parties. here, we are showing they continue to play a role continue to have an influence on the outcome of races even when all the rules are set against them. also some were in baghdad on the the california primary outcome, i said all right let's imagine that we can try and

predict the outcome of the partisan vote in each district. you know, total vote for democrats, republicans predict that from the district party registration in past elections inserter project forward and say how well does that predict what we saw it in the 12 primary? it turns out he predicted pretty darn well and there's also surveyed doneness suggests people were largely voting -- choosing among candidates of a given party comes even though they had the option to vote for anybody they wanted to. i think parties are an important cue. it appears they can be an important cue in terms of endorsement, but also in terms of the party label on the ballot. voters are hurting on that basis. >> let's jump to chest and then kaitlyn. >> i think what we are going to see this cycle is that parties

are operating basically under a different name. also at the pseudonym. you see this guy, the wall street private equity guy. he and a bunch of other wall street guys are putting together millions of dollars to basically be a proxy for the republican party because they understand the antipathy with which the party favor candidate. so they do it in a different name. they are going to be operating much as the party otherwise would. on the democratic side, you see something similar at the legislative cycle appeared one of the largest super packed is devoted to getting another redistricting debacle for democrats like it was for 2010. so it's going to be -- it's incorporated as a super packed. it's basically party operatives who have migrated over to proxies for the party.

maybe they won't be as powerful as renewed them. we think they will be powerful under a different guise. >> i think the underlying message of my researchers are rules of the said in place really to structure the presidential nomination and how the campaign and how voters have a say in the process. so while i death and i think the role of the parties has changed over time it is that the parties are operating in a different way. they are setting these rules come in trying to regulate the calendar and those have implications for both candidates and voters. the breaking of the rules by the party's reaction to a show the parties have different levels of effectiveness if they want. the democratic party was able to keep the candidates from campaigning in florida and michigan in 2008 and meanwhile at 2012, the candidate spent massive amounts of money despite

the fact that florida willingly broke the rules that are the republican party. so there is the opportunity to take a stand and shape the nomination, whether through setting the rules or in person and coalescing the candidate as wayne talks about. >> excuse me. i think the political parties are going to continue to be the dominant act during american elections design as the candidates or party nominees. it's that straightforward. party circuit as the conflict. they're the ones generated the ideas along which lines grassroots that do this are falling and picking side. how they perceive politics. they create rules for nominating candidates. they are the organizational master for getting up to vote in

almost every respect the parties are the vehicle. you can't understand elections without it. the form changes. there's no question that form, the tactics change. .. a couple papers that i did in

which we tried to look at this in terms of campaign finance networks and found that the parties were very skilled and 27 was very much part of the party networks and very much on board with what they were doing and helped them get around the campaign finance rules so the parties are very adept at this sort of thing and adapting to new rules and campaign finance regimes and remaining as relevant to that as ever if not more so. >> i will challenge that a little bit further and turn it over i promise. in ohio on tuesday we have roughly 25% turnout in the general granted it was all of the raises the 25% turnout increasingly says people are not paying attention to the parties may be very adept at of thing that structure but it seems like a lot of folks are outside of that structure. anybody can jump in. >> you're lucky to get 35%.

that's great. >> other folks we have microphones. >> this one is for wayne. if you would apply your analysis between 2012 was romney the presumptive nominee based upon your standards as you compare with 2000 and was this in part due to the supertax and then a question for seth and eric what do they play on the primary specifically in the race? >> i think 2012 romney was the beneficiary of a sequential primary worry he was with large numbers of people within the republican party. that preferred somebody else. and as they looked at who the

other alternatives were a pan out. before the voting starts, so right on the eve of the iowa caucuses i think that romney reemerged as it can't be gingrich or santorum. and he did reemerge. it's almost exactly the same pattern that you saw what john mccain and 2008. john mccain does arrive back as a week frontrunner. i portray this in the book as two different alternative scenarios but it's a continuum between them. i think the party establishment leaders have come around looking at romney but he was nowhere near a strong thing that as a george w. bush was going into

the iowa caucus. if that makes any sense. >> i think that there are two things going on. the super packs are one of them and i write about that in the book i have coming out next year. but romney -- one thing is the basically allow candidates who somebody or some group of people really would like to see nominated cannell of a sudden get a cash infusion that we never saw before. and some candidates who were in a sense knocked out can re-emerge. and i think we saw that in particular with new gingrich and rick santorum. they didn't have a broad based appeal. when we talk about campaign finance, what does that indicate? traditionally the amount of money reflected the kind of support among the money of the network donors. but in the year of the internet now we have to really look at how many are giving and is it small or big.

when we see the candidates that are raising money from a few donors it doesn't tell a lot about their support and their appeals. so i don't think it changes whether they are elected or not but it does make them competitive and they can run and really muck things up. more generally, the internet. the ability to raise money in a short period of time from large numbers of people. i think as reinvigorating the idea of momentum as a possibility and presidential nominations. simply because, you know, from the roughly 1970's through 2000 miti arguably 2004, the candidates couldn't have the capacity with an increasingly front loaded primary schedule to raise the money and the difference. now they can raise money quickly and that gives the potential for the candidate that beats the expectations like a barack obama

barack obama was well founded their but he really shot forward with his campaign fund raising. the internet as a fund-raising vehicle they have changed the game and have made a with a greater potential for instability and volatility in the momentum during the primary it's going to matter in their races in which the party already hasn't come together. >> the other question was what role did they play in the primary process. i haven't looked at that in particular. i haven't collected the supertax spending at one point in the general election if.

that was sort of early october. at that point, there was a lot going into certain races. they were managing to raise a lot of money regardless. gary miller i remember who ended up in the same party race in the district who's a republican running against the republican and the district that really probably should be elected democrat. there was a ton of money from the realtors that ended that race, but at that point in time in october, there really wasn't a lot going into california specifically. if you look at the university of the super pac monies in what is going into the presidential election. we saw how that money changed the predictable outcome of the house elections nationally didn't really change much. so my own view on the super pak is it goes and where the race is

already highly competitive. i will say in california there's also a lot of activity for the state legislative candidates, the state legislation was hugely expensive, and campaign finance along california has allowed something like the super of pacs and encouraged them so there is tremendous activity at the legislative level in both the primary and the general. but i don't think it was quite as big a deal in the congressional races. so again i haven't followed up on this data. >> one thing that i think we will see in 2014 and 2016 as well is not just more super pac involvement in primaries but in the other party's primary. that is what happened with todd akin and claire mccaskill spending money to run ads that

promoted todd akin during the primary. some of the operatives i talked to see that as a pretty effective model going forward it to sort of make mischief and the republicans might control of the senate if it were not for o'donnell and murdoch and people they nominated over the past few years and the republicans are not interested in trying to turn the table and make mischief in the democratic primaries as well >> michael with the campaign finances and also in albany and i don't want to ask about the super pac. i was fascinated by these findings that were reported. and i have a three part question and in the lower part of their people might want to weigh in on. i wondered first i would note

that you are writing about california races i gathered mostly legislative races may be. but what extent do you think that your findings were shaped by the fact that the first round not even sure to call it a primary, the first round election involved both democrats and republicans and therefore the party accused are perhaps more important to the voters to extend do you expect to find the transfer more normal. what extent do you think that your findings are influenced by the level of race or the specific office and visibility of the election to the voters and the number three, the totally speculative part to what

extent -- i know that there are a lot of party operatives to sticking their toes in the water and seeing that they get involved in primaries. at the congressional level. but to what extent do you really expect that to happen given that there were costs when they lose? >> let me turn back to the first part i guess. how unique was this particular election nor does it matter in the first talk to the election in california? so this wasn't the first selection a much the california parties have issued endorsements still trying to obtain the data on the counter for 2010 or earlier. it's harder to read you basically need somebody on the inside and we happened to have that for this cycle. but we would like to do that. we are hoping to do that to get a sense -- i don't think that they endorsed as widely as the previous race or see it as as

much of an urgency that in some cases, they did that and we are hoping to measure that. in terms of just speculation, we see 2012 and is an unusual cycle for the party leaders and candidates and party leaders and not necessarily for voters though. not many of them had a very different voting experience when they went in the balance of the endorsement it wasn't really staring them in the face. you have to look at it in the back of the booklet to find out the party was endorsing and if it wasn't right there on the line. and as with any other primary, you have a list of candidates and maybe you heard something about them and maybe not. but as you pointed out these are mostly state of legislative races. a few congressional, but generally the voters don't have a tough familiarity with the people on the ballot. so, i think for the voters it was actually pretty typical. >> can you remind me with the other questions were?

>> would you expect a similar effect in the higher visibility race, and would you expect the parties really to start worrying and more often in primaries not around of the election but the primaries and higher level races than just for converse? -- congress. >> we had a pretty broad distribution in the state assembly and congress. it's just a general mix. and so i would expect them to continue doing that. one of the questions is how many primary competition will there be and how much of what we saw in 2012 was a function of the redistricting which was also pretty radical in california just in this basic sense that moved the lines a lot and so there is a lot of uncertainty out there about who and i representing and how well do they know me and my name and so forth? and are they going to be involved in the future higher levels and what we expect to see

the high levels? i expect that it would be less likely they would get involved than if you got a legitimate race on your hands. it's the kind of thing that i think the party in this endorsement process would want to set out. you wouldn't get a consensus developing in the way that you would for these low level races. and perhaps the endorsement wouldn't carry as much weight because it is a high-profile contest. the voters have more information coming out than from other sources. so i mean it's going to -- the coming election cycle 2014 is not going to be a great test for that because jerry brown basically isn't going to face any competition for the nomination on the democratic side. and on the republican side you have actually the author of the top two primary in the greatest promoter running as the main

candidate and tim adamle the jester jumped in the race as a tea party candidate, he is a little interesting. so we will see if he -- we are on c-span. i don't want to say anything too bad. but he is you know we will see whether she is able to get a broadbased support within the party. because among the assertive party regulars is sort of the persona because of the top two primaries. so, there could be a potential for a fight. the republican party does have its own systems similar to the democratic party system for deciding the nominations. so we will see. >> just on that question of party involvement in primaries more broadly a couple days ago the executive director of the national republican senatorial committee said that dnr s. c. might start playing in the republican primaries to ensure

that the candidates become the nominees including possibly spending money in places like louisiana and georgia. and of course adds jeff mentioned a little earlier the nrsc lead to todd akin and richard murdock. the problem is that policy started because they tried a hands-on policy which really backfired. and in and 2009 they infamously endorsed charlie crist for the senate in florida and that sent the conservative activists through the roof and had a big impact on marco rubio and actually chris not only leaving the republican party but becoming a democrat so i think the conservative activists feel pretty justified in their anger. so at least on the republican side they're stuck between the rock and hard place but the more they play in these primaries, the more they risk giving fuel to the last elected candidates and i think that if i were paul brown in georgia who is the most

obviously the party candidate in that race on what will come them coming in and spending money on someone like jack or karen tariffs and i couldn't believe the announced that publicly. there is enough outside groups on the side with establishing the money they could have done that without having the parties. that was really surprising. >> come over to this side of the room. >> from the northeastern university i have commented on two of the papers. one, the paper about the politics of recovery. two other names you could add to the list are harold washington who was both barred and spent time in prison and was elected the mayor of chicago and the other one you want to go even further back as james michael who had a variety have -- i know he spent some time in prison for

the -- i don't think that's wrong, but he did serve time in prison for taking a civil service exam for somebody and that was actually at the very beginning of his political career and this never be real for it and the 1. i would make about that is it does seem that a lot of the examples i know of people that have done this successfully are people in a certain kind of ethnic and racial subcultures where there is a certain kind of suspicion about established a government. where there is an illegitimacy around it and therefore there were a whole lot of irish in boston who didn't really think it was all that bad that somebody took the civil service exam for somebody else because they thought of the exams were not all that fair and needed

anyway. the other comment that i would make is about the jewitt paper. two things, one it isn't quite fair to say that the republicans did nothing of wanton 1996. i don't know if you know something called the delegates in the organization committee there was created in 1968 with very little fanfare. and yet, it ended up making many of the same changes that the mcgovern frazier committee did. it didn't go quite as far but it did open up the process significantly. and one reason is because they were able successfully there is a faction in the republican party, goldwater being the preeminent early example that basically says the establishment is against us. we can open up the process ordinary voters the more that we will succeed. the second thing is i disagree with your comment that the 2012

reforms didn't work. eda actually did significantly the front load the process in the following sense that the process for the republicans in 2012 begins with eight weeks in which there is only a single orie two primary. and that allows -- the classic example of the kind of thing that allows, new gingrich unexpectedly wins the south carolina primary. and for a couple of days he's in the lead nationally in all of the polls. romney is able to come back because the next primary is in for another like ten days or something like that. it's interesting to note in the previous year's the south carolina primary had been followed three days later by super tuesday. of that calendar had an effect in 2012, it is not unreasonable

to think that gingrich would have been the republican nominee and what has been a complete disaster for the republican party so i think it actually did work to be a disconnect i don't disagree. in the process it changed the calendar. i think what i was trying to highlight and perhaps articulately unef is the goal of lengthening the process and bringing more states into the process for perhaps intentioned this year's of the did link in the process and there was more time between contests. we had that flow in late feb that had not previously been the scene. but yet you're states voted because corestates moved their contest back. not all due to the republican reforms but it also part due to some of the state's moving the contest to match up with a congressional or the statewide primary for their economic reasons. and to your first point, i do recognize and i write in my paper a little bit about the reforms of 1968. i just think that -- i classify

them more as recommendations than strong reforms and requirements to the same degree that the democratic party did. and just how historic cleaves they are not viewed in the same light as becoming as involved particularly when you look at the fact that the democrats changed the rules and change them back and change them again. but perhaps i should temper that point as well. >> picking up on that point a little bit about the scandals and some of the others that t. q. we back to begin the discussion of context can you go further back on with the accusation is? we are talking about money and drugs clearly in a lot of the other research there is a big indication that the fiscal

scandals seem combined with abuse of power that seems to be the worst. but i think that we are finding something different when it is about a comeback. and especially if you are running in the context in which you can present yourself as part of senate joost group it used by the system to play that quite well. and whether that is the case the judge talked about and whether it is in alabama that used the tenth amendment controversy in effect to the attack on the christian conservatives that is very much the case. that is in many ways what makes the comebacks of extraordinary because he didn't have a lot of the other stuff going for him. he just did it as a skill as a candidate somebody that just did have a great ability and a lot of luck and in the dhaka with

abramoff to play that around and took awhile to get his act together. and then bush was a weak candidate that is very much contained by her opera there was any way that didn't allow her to really fight it very much. so i think it is a point well taken. but i think that the interplay of what happened, how the candidates deal with what happened and the candidates they are running really matter more than the underlining scandal itself. when it comes to these contexts. there's a second act in politics. i'm looking north of the border right now and wondering has anybody ever taken the first act of a long enough that they survive this and reform while they were in office? >> one example we don't have in the paper because he never left is david vitter.

i don't have any knowledge of he still wearing diapers or what the deal is. but you may remember in the louisiana, the united states senator from louisiana who patronized the d.c. madam, and they gave graphic testimony about some of his habits. and he stayed in office, ran for reelection and the dscc have a moderate actually kind of center-right congressman. they thought that they could beat him and he won by 20 points. so you know that is one example. in terms of dhaka hall and drugs -- alcohol and drugs. i would have to wrap our mind around it and when it kept up as long as rob ford. but this best example was probably marion berry has been censured by the d.c. city council twice in the last three

years. once for bribery and then a second time also financially related abuse of power has talked continuously about his struggles with alcohol and drugs and continues getting elected and i think that he is 78 79-years-old. and the only election that he never lost was the one that he ran while she was literally waiting to go to prison. so i think it's very possible. again, depending david maher, you said that's what your name was? you make a good point. we explore it a good point about the oppositional cultures that are already very skeptical about the media and the media establishment generally speaking and how advantageous those contexts can be for the scandalized candidates.

>> we have questions on that side. >> charles franklin marquette law school. i wanted to play off of david's point at the end a couple of rounds ago on the republican senatorial committee. and i want to direct a tape on the 2016 round. the chairman is facing all kinds of efforts to shift the party. and in the broader context of the panel the goal is to e lacked the strongest candidates that unifies the party and marches on to victory. so given the difficulty of supporting charlie crist to crash and burn to extend what unifies the chairman about things to do in this nominating process he's proposed a number of things. so, i would like to hear your thoughts on that. >> i think it really depends on what his goals are and the goals of the party.

i think the structure of the calendar is so important and which states are allowed to go early. the senate to party supporters how strong the tea party is in those states at that time. can the republican party keep other states from locking up the rules and moving where they want anyways? i just really wonder if it is going to keep florida from moving forward if the candidates are going to campaign and if they are going to spend millions of dollars there. florida doesn't really -- i don't think that florida cares whether it has nine delegates or 99 delegates because in the recent years, we don't see that matters come the time of the convention. and so that is not penalty enough. you know, in my paper i have got quotes from arizona governor and officials in florida saying we deserve to have these places earlier in the calendar that florida deserves to have an early contest because our voters are a stronger test for the

candidates than any other i think until the republican party can figure out a way to enforce its rules. and just really needs to consider how the calendar is structured and where the tea party is going to come into play. there has historically been you know, fights and concerns over when the southern states get to vote and there was concern that mitt romney wasn't really going to be tested in the south until late in the process and that it is all just on the scene at this point until they make strong recommendations. >> yes, sir? >> university of new hampshire. i have a question for caitlin and wayne. if they are looking back to 08 on the democratic side as a

model worthy of emulation, do you think they are taking the wrong lessons from 08? in a sense, things about 08 on the democratic side could be duplicated in terms of the rules and in terms of the course of your presentation and so forth. but nothing about the rules could produce the to historic candidacy is going head-to-head with one another. and all of the identity politics that involved with that. i mean, that is not by the rules. so high you could have had three more months of mitt romney santorum and gingrich but i don't know that that would boost the turnout more than already and mccain and huckabee and romney for three more months. so what i wonder is are they underestimating how much they can boost the turnout? i think when we look at the longevity of the caucuses, the entity has gone -- how quickly

to the unified that is the question we have in the case of hillary and barack obama. to get more people participating what you need is less agreement and more interparty fighting find more to advocate for that. i don't see that this is really happening. this could be the case of the republican side because there is a lot of disagreement within that party. in the next panel coming up in the schedule, the tea party couldn't really unified on which

candidate and 2012 they would back up. if we look at the evangelical christian ministers the baptist ministers down in dallas, they couldn't agree. so among themselves, which of the republican candidates should have the nominee if we look at the congressional endorsements we saw more support from romney than any of the others but when we look at the grass-roots groups in the republican party there was a lot of internal disagreement in 2012. and i don't think that is changing. i don't see anything that says they are becoming more unified even in the subsets or across the subset of the republican party to be on the democratic party there are a lot more unified. but going back to my argument about candidates hillary clinton is a strong front runner a lot of different groups are going to support if she doesn't run for health reasons or if her husband and is no longer to campaign and does not run if that is the case

will get that race. looks a whole lot more wide-open than it was right now. and you're going to have a much more competitive primary system. that is what i would look at. so these things are so interactive. we cannot just look at one thing out there. and parties are diverse. we tend to stereotype, and we tend to kind of have these images the those are really broad things. >> so, i just want to comment on one thing that wayne brought up. it's interesting to talk about how the republican side is more unified than the democratic party. when we think of this is directly, i think it's an interesting time to be studying this because really for the first time in recent years, we are seeing the republican party that is facing many of the struggles of the democratic party is faced 20 or 30 years ago when they were tinkering with who was the reform process every four years. so, in the direct response to your question about whether the republicans are taking the wrong

lessons, i think in large part, they are. when i showed the table of turnout, i had it divided up into competitive and uncompetitive the competitive and the uncompetitive portion of the nomination. and it doesn't really fall afterwards and that is because in 2012, i think that i had 19 states that were voted after the race was decided essentially. and something like 17 out of the 19 of those had statewide primaries on the same day as their presidential contest. and so, it is that people are coming out for the other races. and then in another paper looked more directly at the rules and how they affect the turnout. and by and large, the biggest predictor of course is switching to a primary rather than the caucus to have a higher turnout so that is not just the early

states that going earlier doesn't necessarily mean more turnout but going leader as long as the race is still competitive and has the biggest influence on the turnout rather than just the street location in the calendar. >> just a follow-up on that. when we look at the date for the nomination if it wasn't effectively decided in which romney had enough delegates at the convention and in the republican primaries didn't change much either, though even after he had the delegates he continued to limp along mainly at 65 or 66% of the republican vote and even though gingrich and santorum were off the ballot they were still getting votes and actually surged a bit. so there were people in the republican party expressing dissatisfaction with romney as a candidate.

when we move from the winner-take-all and now we understand thin. it seems to me that the proportionality just fuels' confusion. we are not there for the turnout. we want to nominate a candidate to win the election. that is what we are trying stay the winner-take-all what you get it over with. you get a nominee and buffon. that was what caused all of the

troubled and every debate poll for the front-runner was. it just went on and on and on and there are so damaged by the kind that they got to the point where they really had the rules one and all of this done the really weekend their opportunity to run a very competitive campaign because there was so much discontent because of these accusations hurled by the other candidate at each other what we do to rewrite the rules. i don't think it's an issue of the calendar the proportionality in turnout ads anything to getting a candidate who can win

the election. >> when preparing the speaker, one thing that i read by ghosh and john was a short piece in which they look at how the delegates would have been allocated in 2012 if the states had used the same rules as they did in 28. if they actually find that the race would have left it longer under the old rules than the new rules. and the fact different candidates won different states early on that it isn't necessarily a prolonged the nomination season this time around. in my people talk about one of the rules the democratic party tinkered with the most troubling to devotees and the 1980's was the delicate delegation world's first mandating the proportional

representation and then letting them do with the threshold and allow the winner-take-all and they allow the states to give the bonus and the candidate running the district and so forth and then the had the superdelegates' and tinkered with the achieving various goals they held jackson better when they thought it wasn't fair to sort of ensure what people thought was a fair allocation of the delegates and so it is a rule that has been tinkered with constantly. i don't think the turnout is important for the turnout sake of the party establishment has a higher turnout in so far that it reduces the possibility of electing the more extreme

candidates in the low turnout elections where the base is powerful what. we think there is research out there to corroborate that. >> other questions? >> grindle that further with this turnout question, on the one hand you see the parties at the most local levels, at the local elections trying not to spend money and energy in the primary and keeping -- finding one or another and letting them go and then they argue that they are really disappointed people don't get involved and a vote later. it seems like a mixed message that is being passed on. is there a way to bring those together that you unify and somehow generate interest and enthusiasm and and that goes to anybody that wants to jump on it.

>> so, one thing that the chairman has proposed for 2016 is moving the convention into june, which i think will be really interesting just to sort of get the general election started earlier and i think that would be particularly interesting to see if they decide to definitively do that how the democrats would respond. so it is in somewhat in reaction to the fact that in 2008 it lasted so long and was so exciting for the democrats. >> i would just respond briefly of those that ran in the primary and ran in the five we primary. i don't think there is any substitute for those kind of primaries of getting people engaged. we appeal to some of different segments and the electorate and the parties are that you have to take a long view and you have to say that by not intervening, by allowing this to happen, we are going to be registered and but

mobilizing a lot of people who otherwise may not have ever engaged in the process. in this way to help us. and it's engaged in a party activities. i totally hear your question about the trade-off and the parties need to take a long view turnout is a mixed bag for the party leaders. they don't necessarily want extraordinarily high turnout in primaries and they basically want to get the results that they are looking for and if they can do that with a low turnout event it would take a lot more to motivate that pity for the general election they wanted many people close to their side to turn out and vote for the primaries. sometimes you want to keep that in house as much as possible.

>> all right. we appreciate everybody's persecution. we have to unfortunately during this session to close. our rate is next door and the final panel for the day will be back in this room. thank you. [applause]

my name is kevin nelson and we are in bellingham washington. we've been in business for nine years now and we started in 2004. primarily, we use the windel which is a letter press that is found in most commercial print shops working with scoring parts but we use it for printing in modern times to use it for printing because they are slower

and a lot of print shops are using these 40 feet long six power presses which send out tens of thousands of prints and our. it is the heart of our business. i think this is when you are buying something that is made with so much contention it just has more presence like if you are sending a card to someone that has not been mass-produced but has been handled by an individual i would hope that it would have more meaning for the person on the receiving end. but it is made with love. there is more from by san bookbinding and letterpress this weekend as booktv and american history tv look at the history and the literary life in washington saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3.

global leaders including more than 30 gathered in new york city in early october for the first city summit. the furies of conversations about ideas around the world. next, new technologies for public safety in our cities. it's followed by a conversation with the new york city and boston police commissioners. in the conrad hotel in new york city, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> [inaudible conversations] the aspen institute and a

bloomberg philanthropy. please welcome walter, president and chief executive officer of the aspen institute and the moderator of public safety privacy and new technology. programmer participants include the commissioner for the office of information and privacy and ontario canada geneina, chief executive officer for the council on cybersecurity and the william g. simon professor of law at the university of california berkeley. >> welcome everybody. this is david bradley. the coast to see you here. this is our most interesting of all panel because it is the thing that is changing most of our lives which is how the boom in new technologies and the innovations that we are facing infringe on our personal privacy and our personal liberties. i'm going to start with jane

jane will haul lute helped found a restaurant and took me out with janet napolitano and we started a group to look at these areas. she is an asset. tell me jane, the whole new cyber explosion, how is that affecting the way that you do homeland security? >> i think that running concurrently to the expansion of the internet which is instantaneous and organic and growing by 100 connections a minute is a global cyber awakening. all of us who are on the internet now are instantly connected to the information that we need making the data liquidity now something that is not only important and powerful but in all of our hands. and this cyber awakening has to be important implications. first, while we know about people on the internet we know what about them. we know people almost entirely

as consumers not as citizens to be than the government's interface people. member to, on blah blah which is supposed to anticipate the familiar is neither the diet or guardian. and third, governments haven't really been in the game in cyberspace cadet largely because they are not the most powerful actors. >> what happens is when you are in homeland security and you are worried about a particular pattern of activity, you can find what a thousand times more information than you could have 50 years ago about a person. tommy -- give me some examples of why that works and why we should or should not worry about it. >> i think the way to think about how it works is how we have been fighting terrorism over the past dozen years. the basics series of the case is then that the bad guys are out there trying to come here. and the way that we need to present to find them where they

are and keep them where they are and fix them. and we have used intelligence. we have used the military and we have used an international partnership in nato and with other governments. and the commingling of that to identify where they are and prevent them from coming. but what if they are here? what if there are already individuals inside of the united states that affiliate with these ideas and mean other's arm? how well will the intelligence community, our military or our international partnerships work? we need a different model and a different approach to be able to say to the american public to have this expectation that your government is doing everything it can to keep you safe nowadays there are cameras all over midtown manhattan and boston of course and perhaps quite luckily near the end of the marathon. you now have new ways of using the biometric optical scans so that you can tell faces and

other devices that you can tell people's faces. tell me how that works. can you actually know where anybody of interest is at any moment, and do you have to have new rules of the road when you deal with that? >> this technology increasingly we can know where most people work at any moment. >> can you give me examples? >> it is an example i think in the commission here from boston about retracing the steps based on the personal mobile devices and calls that they made the that's actually been available for a relatively long period of time. using these devices and using them to fight crime and to examine what happened and to build the case is an important component of law enforcement and policing in our communities. and as people understand the consequences of the sort of

ever-present admission of knowledge and location i think that our rules certainly the sensibilities are changing and the rules will change with age. >> it is any given moment the government knows where i am. >> i think that as one of my colleagues said, the more serious problem is little sister, not big brother. it is companies knowing for example about your purchase history. there is a famous story about literature coming into a person's home and a father getting very angry. why was his young 13-year-old daughter begetting pregnancy literature and pregnancy testing literature and it turns out that her brows and habits suggested she was pregnant and she was. >> really quickly before we go on, different type of question there is now no secretary of homeland security for the united states. nobody has filled your job. there is no deputy secretary of

homeland security. washington seems totally dysfunctional. we can't even fill jobs in washington now. is that a problem? >> it is a problem if the process is broken down and in many ways in washington they have broken down. it's not a problem because in the particular case of homeland security because they are experiencing a staff that are filling these positions on an acting basis, i come out of a military background. you know, the leadership that it takes all the time and everyone is expected to be trained and ready and seven to the leadership positions on the case it is not a problem, but to the broad question. how is the subject of the conference affecting our privacy? >> i will respond to that in just a moment, but i must respond to one thing. i think that we have two very much worry about big brother. it's not just a matter of companies engaging in this kind

of an interest of activity, but the states. surveillance by the states has never been greater. as a result of this revelation let us not for a moment suggest that surveillance by the state is not a very serious matter. it is increasingly serious. and what it threatens is our freedom of liberty. and the united states of america is a preamble to the constitution as we the people. it's all about living a life that is free and free from surveillance i'm not talking about not getting the bad guys. it really knows we have to get the bad guys. i want at as much as you do. but we have to find a way of doing surveillance and law enforcement and counterterrorism and privacy and that is something we've developed is privacy by design.

productively into the design of information technology business practices and working with the government to do this. and if you think what's the price range, let me tell you. i was invited to speak at the pentagon by that part of defense in march the privacy and counterterrorism measure. they invited me back in august and we had a session on how to privacy and counterterrorism to be there was a lot of interest in this and work on this. so let me put that on the table. don't worry about the stakes. let's just do something to ensure that our privacy, which is the underpinning of freedom, ladies and gentlemen let's not forget. people think that it is a personal right or a fundamental human right, it is a personal thing. but it's not this -- it is the underpinning of freedom and has enormous societal values. >> when you talked about in your papers that we read for this, you talked about not being a

trade-off, either or. if you could have privacy or security by using new technology to just start you out as a moment ago explained how the technologies work. >> and so, we talk about abandoning the model of one or the other where you have would be considered unnecessary trade offs. you abandon the trade off and explored and this is where the innovation comes in. privacy just is absolutely essential to the innovation. it is unnecessary but not sufficient. but it is a necessary condition for the innovation because it breathes new ideas and creativity and how do you do this. supply a metric for example, we have advanced something called a volumetric encryption where you can get the value of the body of metrics that you need the official recognition fingerprint, voice, whether you want, but it is encrypted so that the only way that in which we could convey the access is for the properly authorized users and that could be by law

enforcement -- >> in the grand central they are taking me at diametrically. that goes to the law enforcement databases. it is encrypted. and if there is a reason that they feel that they may need to trace me, they would have to get a court order to do it. >> yes because you need a probable grounds to access the kind of law enforcement. and we have done that with surveillance cameras. you can put a coat and incorrect video stream such that only when it is properly required, and judicially authorized is that access. >> real quickly, and i am going to get with that this is totally fine with people in the department of homeland security. >> it is already in place and homeland security. more people than there are in the planet have moved to the tsa systems over the past ten years. more than 7 billion people. the data acquisition is never at some point. you do it for an operational reason. there's never been a privacy region tsa. there's never been a privacy

breech with that kind of information. so, i guess i in endorsing is the notion that you can have privacy and security on these two things to travel together. >> and you got it may have been worked up from a comment i made in the green room and i was going to ask a more philosophical question which is why is privacy such an important good? when i was growing up if i walked into the drugstore and new orleans and bought a pack of marlboros, it would take me 87 to ten minutes before with my parents would know that i had no privacy in that regard and i think sometimes people confuse or say privacy which is a word we love when what they really mean is anonymity you get to things anonymously in the society to it for two or three years we have not had anonymity. in other words if i go do something like in the town i grew up my community we have to

be a better than we do with ann minetti. do you feel that we need to preserve anonymity as we go about our lives? >> in your small town absolutely. but what didn't happen was that information wasn't tracked for ever. right now, the ability to track information coming your whereabouts knorr melody tracing to the to -- your mobility tracing, disinformation and potentially have it is used in the ways that you never contemplated, nor was it ever intended that is one of the fundamental differences of hundreds of years before. the reason that we need to privacy it is such a basic concept to me. privacy is like breathing. ..

the department have every right to have access. all of this information about you and i'm not talking about information within your house bedroom, all of your activities that you engage in. and it's an observed proposition. privacy is about control. personal control. that the individual has the ability to control the information and the use of the

information. >> should be able to travel privately on an airline? >> not about concealment. it's about your choice of how you use information about yourself. >> if i travel on airlines should it remain private? >> i'm not saying there aren't lot of places where you're required by law to give information. you give -- or you don't engage that behavior. if you fly. we have citizens, we have taxes that we pay to the government, the irs, of course, is required by law to get the information. all acceptable. we know the rules. but those are legitimate uses of that information, and the protection of that information by the organizations by dhs, by irs, very -- >> what about buying a gun? should i be able to do it privately? >> we can get in the gun debate but the point is there are laws and the laws have to be followed. but they converse to that is the government department is collecting that information are only permitted to use the information for a narrow purpose.

they're not intended to use for secondary purposes unrelated to the primary purpose of collection. it's very narrow. privacy is about freedom. and your ability to largely go about your activities as you wish subject to limited exceptions and subject of course, to -- >> i actually agree with you. i'm asking the questions. let me ask you you say it's a limited purposes. do you feel we're using that information for purposes for which it's not intended today right now? say in the department. give me some example. >> i'm not going comment on the james department. i don't know them personally. >> it's homeland security. >> i have worked with them. there's no issue. but i'm going to point to the obvious which is the nsa revelations. not just nsa, my country, cfc is the same kind of thing. that revealed the massive skate of information about law-abiding citizens that are being collected. let me point to you if you want the reference and excellent

report on the false positive. you're identity as being a potential terrorist and you're not. it's a false hit. the enormity of the false positive that have resulted from the searches is just staggering and should be completely unacceptable to three democratic societies such as ours. it's unacceptable. those people are not off the list. there are these false positive until they are cleared you can go through enormous problems and anxiety. >> like if i can get -- >> go ahead. >> well, i feel like a visitor from outer of space here, because the crime story in new york is in two respects, i think, a distinction from the ordinary privacy and municipal problems. in the first instance, it says close to a solved problem as we

thought was intractable as ever existed. the homicide rate in new york this year will be down 86% from the homicide rate in the same city with the same population and the same structure problems 30 years ago. now that is astonishing. the second thing is that the changes that took place are relatively low tech and they are all located, i might say, in public places. this is going to be important when we center the conversation on privacy. the changes that took place is a computer being able to identify to the police force where crimes keep happening. and public drug markets are happening. it's not rocket science even

1975. it was a change in policing strategy, it worked very well. what about privacy? well, in a funny sense if you're talking about public places, you are talking about a serious problem but i think privacy is the wrong word for it. the reason for that is that public places are too dangerous for a kind of an ton my that we associate normally with privacy. so for instance, if you want to talk about 700000 stops and frisks in 2011 or 2012. and about the fact they keep happening to the same people in the same neighborhoods. and the false positive rate is hoovering around 98% as anna expressed it. you have a serious cost and a serious problem with serious

benefits and it's not about privacy. what it is about is government having to respect the dignity and an ton me of people in the streets even though they know things about them that require a relationship between government. >> how is technology and the new sort of command center we're going to see today change that? >> it doesn't change that! that is a relationship between individual people. if machines could stop us and frisk us and that does happen in the airport folks who are going travel. then in a funny sense the indignity of the problem or the power competition when two people with too much teenagers testosterone are on the sending and receiving end of the stop and frisk.

doesn't happen. this is human relations written large. i think that as soon as what you have is a polite use of government. a polite use of technology, and some -- if everybody stopped and frisked is treated if they were guilty then you're going to be 99% wrong. on the other hand i don't mind going through a machine if i'm one of 100000 people who was coming to see the president of the united states there are people trying to make sure that none of the 100000 are armed and dangerous. >> let me open it up if i may. if we can turn up the lights a little bit so i can see. raise your hands.

question? yeah. go ahead, ann. then this gentleman here. let ann give one quick comment. >> i never answered innovation -- >> the question about innovation. >> i'll make it really fast. the reason it is so important to innovation. i say it as a psychologist in term of my former life. we have limited constant -- by that we all have a limited ability to focus on various things. if we are living in a society where we think we are constantly being surveyed people are watching us. let's fast forward this to ten years, everybody is watching us all the time. imagine you live in the -- i don't know time of nazi germany. of course that's nonsense. you lived in a society where you constantly were being surveyed and watched. what did people go? gained a self-protective behavior. they engage in attempting to shield their behavior. not because they're doing anything wrong. but because people don't like to

be watched and surveyed. what the point is the focus shifts away from creativity and innovation and risk taking which you need for innovative pursuit. because a limited amount of what you can focus on. what we want to do is encourage freedom and this notion you're not constantly under surveillance. one of your own professor here at columbia a leading economist recent i hadly had a book he wrote about how important freedom was in order to develop innovation. he was talking about how he was worried that china wasn't going in that direction because their freedom was restricted and innovation was coming to a halt. that's how i tie it to how privacy is an essential ingredient. not sufficient, of course, but essential to innovative pursuit. >> i'm not going listen to comparison to nazi germany. >> surely she doesn't mean it that right. >> she pulled it back. >> no, i meant --

no disrespect at all. it's nothing like that. what i'm saying when you look at countries like that and what changed in the society during a time of heightened surveillance is people alter their behavior. they automatically shield almost intingively. what goes is increation, creativity, and of course freedom. >> i think what is happening right now powerfully three enormous are -- people have expectations of inclusively. nothing about us without us. they have expectations of transparency. what is going on. they have expectations of reciprocity. it it's good enough for you. are you doing this as bell? point one, in response to that. there are global movement ante-dote and reactions to some assesses we see in the privacy community is not the only one outraged by the revelations. >> yes sir? >> a couple of weeks later i a

chance to try on the google glasses. if i gave a pair to each of the officers as someone in the room might be able to do is they would say start filming. i think the beginning of a very important discussion because i think we in cities have to figure this out. anyone think the program communications commission is going to keep up with this pace of change? so -- >> there is no fcc commission. >> yeah. >> we're going have to figure out what the bond industry -- boundaries and protocols are for the use of technology and public safety. it's exploding very quickly. so i guess i would be interested if any of the panelists have any thoughts about who the regulator might be if not us at the municipal level then whom? >> frank first. >> well, again, i think i can tell you how regulation is going

evolve, and that is that if the security device is useful, it will be tried at the municipal level, if there are any norms that are going invoked to limit it, it will probably be in different levels. we're sitting here in a city where there is an ongoing conversation now between the police department which innovates with security, and a federal court which tries to protect when there are costs ib closed. but the point i think i want to make, first of all cameras are so cheap now. that in public places, if what you're concerned about is the right not to be filmed game over. we now are going to be living.

>> everything on public can be on youtube. >> it with be on youtube. somebody has to be interested in it. >> i've watched youtube! that's not true! >> you don't like cats. >> correct. [laughter] >> okay. now look the truth is the issue that is going to be crystallized in public space isn't privacy in that world. it is dignity and on autonomy it's regulating in which power is used rather than removing the power. that is going to involve balances obviously, but it is not a technology issue so much as a human relations and a political issue. >> yeah.

>> ought to be comfortable. >> go ahead ann. it. >> if i can say i don't degree. i think it's both. it's human relations and technology. i work with the police chief all the time in toronto dan. -- canada. he has a slide saying we have to take a positivesome approach to policing and privacy. you do both. of course there are cameras. there are ways in which to do that heighten the privacy protection. not the exclusion was camera. they are everywhere. when it's done by the police and the state. you can leave in privacy protection in term of the use. >> what happens when everybody is walking around wearing google glass. >> it's interesting. i met with google last month and they are engaging in a number of measures. the big issue with google class -- glass is record you. unlike a camera where the person being recorded sam notion you don't have the notion with

google dplas. -- glass. they identified a light fixture. >> you're already able to hack so you don't get the red light on if you don't want it. >> right. don't think they're not aware of the issue. they're actively trying to find measures to make it more viz -- visibility. >> trust me somebody will have a glass soon that is not trust parent. even if it's not google. >> it's not you can't up the ante. you have to reject the proposition that it is inherently a diser -- zerosome game. >> jane? let me say we're talking about fundment tal level security. it's typically societies assign to the government to handle. we want government run the police. we want a safe country. military you make the law. and governments are used to be the monopoly. they are in all place except

cyberspace. governments have not been given the responsibility in cyberspace to keep us secure. so as we look at these trends and technology on the one hand we have an intelligence community at some level that thinks it is 1947 and information is hard to get and technology doesn't exist. highly lucrative. >> so you to trust government. >> let me get this one question. >> hi. andrew personal democracy media. i'm sure if we ask the people in the audience how many times they have read in service all the way through. we have a small show of hands. we're addicted to the technologies and we're obviously arguing today about the battle between how big brother and little sister are using data. what is the role of public play in this debate? what can we do ourselves to insist on motive behavior to

ensure we can preserve the kinds of privacy and security and freedom we -- >> a real quick wrap you know. use it as a final answer. >> it seems to me that the question is about the use of power and technology is a power it is used in human relationships. and so the politics of sorting through the solution is going to be a politics of individual dignity in power relations. >> jane? i would say the accountability mechanism of this country in the hands of the people most powerful mechanism of keeping their government honest and keeping each other honest as we evolve what is a complex conversation. >> so you so speak out. you have a strong voice. speak out and let your politician and government know what you want for the first time ever.

six out of ten americans ever since polling happening. six out of 10-rated privacy and civil liberty rated a greater importance than public safety. what you have to do is tell your government you expect transparency, openness on their part, and hold them accountable. >> that's because six in ten take security for granted. >> no i would challenge that completely. privacy has traditionally been relegated to a lower category. now with all the revelations and how much people don't know about what the government is dining. people are truly astounded and don't want it anymore. and fighting back. that's what i urge you to do. >> that sets up the next panel. thank you, ann thank you jane thank you frank. let me welcome two people on the front lines of this. thank you very much. [applause] two people on the front lines of this. ray kelly, who everybody knows.

the commissioner of the city of new york. [applause] we've already talked about how crime has gone down. [inaudible] >> did you have any reactions to what you just heard? >> i didn't hear -- okay. i got here late. when you get your command center tell us how it works and the concerns you have about how that might either invade privacy or cause people to react against you for invading their privacy. the new command center watch somebody putting down a bag in grand central and scan their face and catch them later. >> it's not a command center. the lower manhattan coordination security standard.

it has private and public and representatives of major companies. it monos or its an array of cameras now about 5000 cameras. many of them are smart cameras. not all. but by smart, i mean, you can do video analytic on the cam are. for instance if you want to go back 28 days to 2:00 in the afternoon, particular camera you want to see someone wearing a red shirt. it you can put that specific information in and it will come up very quickly. i said 28 days because after 30 days it erases automatically. we put that in voluntarily. we work with privacy advocates. we knew there would be some concerns so we put in, you know the major camera as a system. so we put in a protocol that is on our website. delineates the fact that --

well to say they all erased after 30 days. i don't think, i haven't heard major privacy concerns raised as a result of what we call -- lower manhattan security initiative. and i believe that a lot of it was forestalled by working with the privacy advocacy before we put the system in. >> tell me a little bit more about what new technologies are using. give me a couple of examples how it worked even though some people might have concerns about it. >> well, as i mentioned, we have the smart cameras who also have license plate readers. now all over law enforcement. really amazing pieces of equipment. you can drive down the street at 60 miles per hour with license plate readers on a patrol control and read the license plates on both sides of the street. it's, you know, a very effective tool. we have radiation detectors now

that aren't actually worn as pagers, which will tell you specifically where the radio active material is moving. now sort of a state of new york. something else we've. working with facial recognition. which you may have spoken about here before. it's very much a work in progress. we have solved dozen of cases as a result of our emerging official technology capability. we have software now that enables us to a whole host of things. it's really moving along. >> in the earlier panel frank said if instead of having stop and frisk they would say more automatically, you know, you defect people with guns.

it would be less sort of invasive to personal autonomy. do you have that technology? >> it's funny you should ask. it we are looking at something. we have been looking tat for several years. we are working with the metropolitan police and the dod research component. it's called terror hurts technology. what it does is essence everybody emits radiation and what it does do is enable you to see someone carrying a weapon. the problem so far it is too big and doesn't have the range. we know what cell phones are like in 1986, you know. and what they are like now. you know, we believe the technology will only get better. that would be a major breakthrough as far as finding weapons on the street. >> can you imagine ten years

from now that technology being deployed around the city. just like you have cameras recording where people go you notice that somebody with a gun is moving in a certain neighborhood. >> not without a nature fight. [laughter] i think the legal -- you know we're talking -- our lawyers are looking at. it the issues of obviously fourth amendment issues are involved. but, you know, this is something you coin increment. i don't know if ten years from now you see them positioned all over. we have to develop a new technology. i think it would be concerns raised by -- >> when so you privacy concerns down in lower manhattan. you have privacy advocates sitting with you. how do you do that? do so you in your department sort of specialists and privacy and ethics issue that you -- >> we don't have privacy down there. but we have attorneys that focus on this. the protocol we mentioned put

together by the attorneys. so obviously we, you know, we live in the most will tinge use city in the world. we have to be aware of potential litigation and ongoing litigation and certainly privacy -- privacy issues are among them. >> commissioner davis walk us through how technology helped you after the boston marathon. >> well, i was at the finishline. after they went off, i recognized that there were thousand of cameras there. not just along the street owned by businesses. the city had few familiar cameras. we had thousand of people that had iphones that were taking shots and video of the finish line. and it was my estimation based upon what i was seeing no one could move through the crowd -- [inaudible] we focused on retrieving as much video as we could get. it was extremely important.

we wept to crowd soliciting and asked people to send every clip and shot they had taken. they came in so quickly that the computer crashed. we had to rely on twitter and facebook to retrieve some of the photographs. we got them all compiled in a hastefully set up command post. >> you said you asked people to send them in. did you collect privately taken photographs without people's permission by doing it from public sites such as dwitter facebook, and others where you can say okay these are these people who posted at the boston? >> we looked at everything possible. >> did you have any concern about people say take photograph people took and put

privately online on facebook accounts? >> no. because of the law right now is what we operate under. i think it is missed in the conversation. ray and i operate off what is constitutionally acceptable. the supreme court has said if this information in a public place. video information in a public place. we can look at that. it's a little less clear as you get to facebook and twitter. but right now there are places we can go legally and we go there. the problem with our profession. unlike the medical profession we don't have that here. we operate off off the supreme court decision after the fact. we are behind the curve when it comes to change like we're seeing right now. we need to look at that. we need to start a conversation among police officials and the community to talk about what is right and what is wrong. george was about 20 years off.

nobody knows how to deal with them. >> the boston bombers after wards technology kicks in the action immediately. was there a way to use technology more effectively to know they were bad actors planning something? >> you know, i think we have been focused externally. we looked a the the security apparatus in the federal government to take care of terrorism. ray has done a tremendous job here in making it local. but i think that when you deal with what we were dealing with in boston which home grown violent extremists radicalize order the internet a whole new system has to be thought about. and debated with the public as to what the role of police -- local police should be in that environment. it's clearly a threat it we're facing right now we need to do more. i wish there was a computer system we could find that would say these are the guys. but it's more about connecting with the community and having good contacts in communities

throughout the city. and being transparent and open about it. >> you keep talking about transparency and openness. it's come up three or four times. let me ask a hypothetical question. i should have the previous panel as well. suppose all of edward snowden rev lyingses had been things that government had said here's what we're doing. we're going make it public right away. we're doing these type of things. if you don't like it call your congressman. and we know how restrictive it was in term of access to the public. but i think that was a mistake and now it seems like those things are -- are you trying to be transparent without comprising your method and operations?

>> we have obviously we're not going to preach confidentially for a specific investigation of concern. we have people such as the group here will come in take a look at the equipment we have the processes that we use we have many community groups. we have tactical made up of leading members of the african-american community. we have a i think, a very good dialogue as far as processes there's some friction it's not necessary lay bad thing. we work with the federal agencies every day.