that this man but said that once for him dreaming is simply bei being. it's this workable approach to life and work that sustains shimon peres for decades in the political spotlight. in just a few weeks, he will leave the presidency behind. he will close the book on one story political career and arrange to his successor. but what a story it has been. what a story it is. so, today we honor shimon peres the president of the state of israel we thank him for being such a great friend of the united states over the years. for strengthening the him break

the union between the two democracies, and we look forward to the next chapter in his extraordinary life. may it be as remarkable as those that preceded it. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states senate of the honorable harry reid. [applause] today we are gathered to honor a man who's dedicated his entire life to making the world a better place. i see in the audience senator dick durbin. he was with a group of senators that i left the middle east.

i told senator durbin and others at the time that they were going to have an opportunity to meet demand that i had such a deep respect and admiration for. in fact no one has been more inspirational to me than demand that we honor today. we still talk about that meeting that we had with shimon peres and the view that he had of the world. but is it any wonder i think so highly of this man seven decades of public service should be an inspiration to us all and it is. we have heard his tenure of service in 50 years, premise or twice and acting premise or twice, minister of foreign

affairs on three separate occasions, minister of defense twice, minister of finance commitments to the transportation command any other cabinet post and correctly of course the president of the state of israel. this is a man who never grows old. when he came in the first time being prime minister, a lot of us when th the internet the intt was for someone else to deal with. but not this man. he wanted to know about the internet and he proceeded to teach himself and have others teach him about the internet. he was first trimester to go onto the internet and have the worthy position he holds as part of the internet. he's been educated in the united states on occasion. new york university, harvard.

he speaks hebrew, polish, russian, french. he's authored 11 books and he's been honored with the most prestigious awards that can be given to him worldwide. the nobel peace prize. presidential medal of freedom, medal of honor and today the congressional gold medal. so you can understand why i was so eager to take senator durbin and the other senators would need to meet this good man, this incredible man. my admiration for the president stems more from just as important positions and his many accomplishments. winston churchill said, quote, all the great things are simple and can be expressed in a single word. well, i believe. the greatness of shimon peres can be expressed in a single

word, optimism. he said, this man behind me come off lists and pessimists die the same way. they just live differently. i prefer to live as an optimist. [applause] optimism has been his life and in fact optimism that has inspired so many of us around the world. not that it could optimism has guided shimon peres and everything that he has done in the challenges that he and his family face because of the holocaust and the work of lasting peace to secure israel. his belief in peace which i so admire. he said and i quote there are two approaches to leadership one that is built on force and the

other on goodwill. the reliance on the force is losing. that's the conclusion through goodwill that we can achieve more. isn't that true? [applause] he has achieved so much not only for himself, not only for the state of israel, not only for the middle east, but for the world. through his is a man who's good word, shimon peres only puts peace within our grasp. so i congratulate this good man for the statesman, the leader for the world for everything that he has accomplished throughout his distinguished life. president perez on israel, the middle east and the world are all better because of your optimism and your decency. it is an honor for me to participate in a ceremony today. as a united states congress bestows upon you with highest honor and congressional gold

medal. we honor you today, the father at least one of the fathers of your country and in so many different ways we congratulate you for being the man you are. ..

>> it is now time for the presentation of the gold medal. i have my colleagues on stage to join me for the presentation. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen come at a president of the united states, the honorable joseph r. biden junior. [applause] >> mr. president, congratulations. and with your permission, i will forego the barbra streisand serenade. but what i have to say is equally as much from the heart as your most allotted tools. i heard a story one is barely speaking to another recently and the first one said, you know, shimon peres has only three or four weeks left to go us

president. the response was yes, but they are peres weeks. those weeks have gone on for a long, long time, mr. president. you're absolutely relentless. as everyone has pointed out, you have been minister, prime minister. you've occupied every office areas to occupy. and israel and i would argue around the world has been to so many conferences and other parts of the world with president peres, that you are a force of nature, mr. president. everyone in a while people produce someone who is beyond their off days. they are a force of nature. i have watched you in switzerland, germany, england. i watched you so many places where i've been present while you have spoken. there's never, never, never a place i've had -- and i've known

you, mr. president, since i was 30 years old -- there's every place i've been word this man stand up, everybody -- everybody listens. no matter what the atmosphere in the room before he approached the podium. you're a national treasure to israel, but i would also respectfully sick just you are a national treasure to the united states of america. you are a legendary friend. [applause] mr. president, i know you have heard all of this a thousand times and it is hard to say it but the emotion that we all feel it. but mr. president, i try to picture many times when i've been with you, you've been at the feet of david ben-gurion. you were essentially a kid at

the time. his youngest protége. and you have served continuously since 1948. it is absolutely remarkable. i have watched how you've expressed your protection for everyone who has touched you or your family. i've watched how you give praise to greek monks who helped save your father. i am watched how i am told, knowing you, you can probably and greek songs, too. but it's just remarkable to me how your image and the way you live your life seems in private and public, and although i don't know it in any detail in private has been totally consistent. he spent half of your career, the first half cementing the physical security of the state of israel. as he sat, as a small nation, but a great concept.

you almost single-handedly willed into existence a strong, proud israel defense establishment that we work with so closely today. and ever since then, mr. president, you have been every bit as indefatigable in your search for peace. it is sort of the mma gang of what seems to me a shimon peres. he's always done what had to be done for his country at a time to decide to be done. he's always known what has to be done in his country at the time. and almost every instance i am aware of, he has almost always been ahead of the curve as what was needed for his people. israel has a jewish state, a

homeland for jewish people, a state -- a two state solution was to be the live side by side, palace finance, insurance of determination, mutual recognition and peace. you know, when you think about israel today, at least i do, i have been traveling israel since 1972 and i was raised at a table and shimon peres may not remember, but my father got to meet him, what you call a righteous christian, where we had conversation consistently ached and my father was one of those people after as a young kid, after the war how he couldn't understand why there is a disagreement about establishing the state of israel. why was this the case? why was there any problem? in hindsight today, i think most

of us come in the children are grown men and women look back and it's like this is all inevitable. there was an inevitability about israel becoming a nationstate. strong, proud, successful, economically vibrant nationstate. you don't have to look back very far to realize this is anything but inevitable. as a matter of fact, it was the opposite. literally all the odds, all the odds were against his people. thankfully, israel was blessed with the founding generation who understood what it took to overcome those odds. thankfully, mr. president, israel was blessed with you. my mother had an expression that my siblings and i heard repeated god knows how many times.

she would always say you are defined by your courage and you are retained by your loyalty. you are defined by your courage and redeemed by your loyalty. you are the definition of what my mother was talking about, mr. president. you have great kurdish and your loyalty has been unbending. not only to all of your people, but to the world. as my friends in the senate and the house excuse me for a point of personal privilege. as i said, i've known you for a long time and if you'll forgive me for quoting an irish proverb, there's an old irish proverb that says a good friend is like a four leaf clover.

hard to find, but lucky to have. mr. president, you have been my friend. you have counseled me when i have asked you for counsel. you have done with me what you have done for so many people ahead of me. you literally have given us the wisdom. i will conclude, mr. president, by saying i need the one distinguishing feature of u.s.a. leader in because i've hung around this place a lot, i think i've met the vast majority of the world leaders over the last 40 years. i have never met a person and i mean this sincerely, i have never met a person with greater eloquence nor possessed of more wisdom than you. if there's anything this world

needs more badly now is women and men with wisdom. so mr. president, thank you for what you have done for your country. thank you for what you've done for our country and thank you for your friendship. mr. president, may god bless israel and bring all of your children home. may god bless america. and may god bless your troops. congratulations. [applause] [applause] >> i forgot my job. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the state of israel, shimon peres and the recipient of the congressional gold medal of honor.

[applause] >> thank you so much, vice president joe biden, speaker boehner. great leaders and members and leaders of the senate. i am humbled to stand here today and this great pattern of

democracy. the congress of the united states, here you give expression , the unbroken spirit of the american people. it was first expressed 237 years ago that you signed a document that will still go for all time. among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. those words resonate with much meaning today as they did when america's first patriots broke down. -- broke down. they've inspired generations of americans who dream of a better

america and to have been fired people all over the globe to dream for a better world than the people dream out. i suppose that is why i have always felt at home in the united states of america. [applause] america that was granted the privilege to carry the limbs of humanity. my own dream is to be a shepherd. it came true, you know. so down i worked for sheep. i lose one at night. i worked in order not to miss

one. the dreams of a young shepherd went corrupted by david edgar and -- enter and -- i was then 24 years old. he had been going with heavy responsibilities and invite the general the israeli ministry of defense for carrying a young nation's ability to defend itself. i worked hard. i have little time to study. i didn't know a single word of it laois. after our war of independence, we suggested that go to the united states to learn english, study the american dreams. so i did. i learned that america is not a

land for the ayatollah. i learned that america is the home. the american dream is about hard work by endearing spirit and allow it to create bodies to steer rendered the icon marble dome, the senate and the house of representatives offered the tiny israel, struggling for life, and not believable and i'm breakable friendship to help israel out of her loneliness. you helped israel overcome small size and have some advance. to help us name came the resilient democracy to become a strong enough to take risks for

peace. without your military assistance for security cooperation, all diplomatic and moral support will send us a clear message that we are not alone. on behalf of all the people of israel, i want to thank you, my friend and israel's friend, president barack obama, for standing by our side with unshakable commitment to israel's charity. [applause] i want to thank each and every one of you, the american congress for your unwavering

bipartisan and generous support to my people. [applause] thank you for helping us whether so many storms and for giving us confidence to face the future. friends, ladies and gentlemen, the challenge we face are considerable. together we must fight terrorism, advanced piece, prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capacity. with president obama there is hope that the issue ever rambled the resolved peacefully. but president obama, we believe that iran should be charged by actions, not by worlds.

the artificial structure in the middle east built in the previous empire. at the same time, the rules governing the world rv security and prosperity are no longer mainly national issues. national economies are dependent on global economy. nations security is increasingly dependent on fighting mobile terrorist on. and that's the crisis in the middle east, it is easy to sink into despair. but to have sanded too much into my life to lose hope. i have seen that defy the odds time and again. i have seen israel defeat

superior enemies on the battlefield and send soldiers to rescue hostages, thousands of miles away from home. israel has shown it can defend itself against those who sought to destroy it. israel did and will do everything in our power to bring home our three kidnapped boys. [applause] after iraq had met with their parents, with their mothers. and they asked me to speak here before you on their behalf, to

ask you, to make your voice heard all over the world, to help bring them, they are boys, our boys home, to sound all across the world. let's raise our voice together against terrorism wherever it is. [applause] dear friends, i have seen the genius of israel maker poured middle east plan into a global centers at allergy. around the high-tech can quench the world's thirst for a wartime we increase yields without

increasing land. as they rent them, around the life of this community in a synagogue and belarus. i know that even at the darkest hour cannot prevent a new dome in the next state and it will arrive. my friends, today and together we must tackle to monumental challenges we face. terrorism and poverty. terror knows no borders and obeys no rules. it kills hundreds of thousands and it turns millions into refugees. seed in iran and iraq, syria and

lebanon, gaza and elsewhere. by sanctioning their suppliers, by preventing the financial aid, we know the terrorists are global. there they should we fought globally. we must fight not only the act of terror, that the roots of terrorism. not just by military means, but by their financial supply by demilitarizing their action, by leaving a modern regional gnat that can catch terrorists and protect the innocent old.

religions can play a meaningful role in destroying terrorists and end restoring tolerance and hope. the region can never permit terrorists to hijack phase and perpetrate violence in the name of having. we need voices small lake hope frantz says. we need rabbis, priests and imams to preach and have been analyzed and how. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, it is our duty to offer the young generation a vision more compelling, more promising for

the future. the population moved five times over the last two years. it's economy did not. an era of science replaced the era of men. we experienced it almost daily. israel has put a land, less water, no oil. so we became a nation for high-tech and hard work, allowing tamayo after today can provide a new hope for tomorrow. and my dream today is that the middle east will become a region as israel became a starter nation.

[applause] to make it happen, others in the region must do their share to open their society is. because without freethinking, there is no new thinking and without governments, there are no discoveries. global companies should play a role help in the region become to date and prepare it for tomorrow. two thirds of the middle east population is under the age of 25. for some, this is a cause of concern. for me, it is a source of hope. for business it is a great opportunity to and asked both economically and socially. mobile companies are aware that

young people want a different teacher. they want free expression, but also self-expression. they want equal rights, including the equal right to be different. our two countries, america and israel have the unique contribution. we are not the same size, but share the same values and the same dreams. our dreams keep us young. our values keep us true. but israel has already found premix errands we want to share with our neighbors. in my decade of serving my country, i saw her become a thriving jamaat c., it's about

society, a defense force, a cutting-edge scientific communities. it was done with you and nobody else could be more helpful being you. together we can put the region on a more promising course or initiative and health, education, agriculture, water and science. i hope to dedicate myself to this work in the years ahead. as for america, it remains indispensable. america is the greatest power in the world today and the only great power in history that never tried to become an empire.

[applause] you, my dear friend represent the nation. you became great not by taking. you became great by giving. god bless you. [applause] america. [applause] america is a forceful group, a force for peace. the world is fortunate that america continues to the day. 60 years ago, america looked to the moon to discover a distant land. today the united states is

leading a major scientific effort to reveal secrets of the mind. we are a partner and not after. may i say that in my judgment there may be more to discover. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, america and israel should continue to work together to dance piece. words can be waged a long period piece cause freight collect about her. israel went through seven wars and obtains to peace agreements with egypt, the largest arab country shall along to share of hope, a hope that we'll be able able to renew peace.but the

palestinians said. [applause] israel does not intend to rule over other people. it stands against our values and we sincerely want peace. [applause] israel is committed to bettering the world. president abbas is a leader for peace. [applause] there are people who thought

otherwise. i spoke recently in saudi arabia and iraq be against the kidnapped teen -- kidnapping and for peace. as he is a friend, hamas is clearly not a partner for peace. hamas fires rockets at civilians. we must not lose hope. there is no better solution than a two state peep hole. a jewish state israel, an arid state palestine.

[applause] peace between israel and palace nine can forge a router piece. a bridge should be built to enable the israeli peace initiative to meet the era peace initiative. my friends, i believe it long enough to seem possible. two skeptic i can say believe me, peace is the most possible impossibility. i will be leaving my time as the ninth president of israel. but i never gave up on the struggle to achieve peace. i am young enough to do so.

[applause] ladies and gentlemen, i repeat today with one piece of advice. it is the advice of a boy who dreams and pursue another imagined where his best life would take him and said if you will it, it was not a dream. it was high. looking back, archer aims forest not to be. they were too small. because israel achieved more than they could have ever imagined what anybody dreamed

for. so i ask only one thing from you, the great united states of america, this mighty nation of givers and dreamers. don't dream small. you are great. dream big and make the world better. [applause] and your work will turn those dreams into a new reality. for you and for humanity, god bless you and god bless the united states of america.

and god bless the unbelievable friendship, historic more meaningful operation between your great country and ours. thank you from the depths of my heart. [applause] [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing as the chaplain of the united states senate, doc are very black gives the

benediction. >> let us pray. lord of all, we praise and honor you for using president shimon peres as an instrument of your peace. continue to bless this leader and patriot who believes that security can be found through shimon. may his exemplary life of courage, optimism, patients, steadiness and perseverance inspire us to maximize our possibilities for doing good in your world. bless and keep us. make your face shine upon a and be gracious to us.

lift the light of your countenance upon us and give us your shalom. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated for the departure of the official party and until your bro was invited to depart by a visitor services representatives. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> the communist party u.s.a. recently held its 95th annual in chicago. party chairman said web delivered the keynote address. the event also included a number of speeches on issues like climate change, the minimum wage, iraq and the midterm elections. watch the entire convention saturday evening starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

>> 1971, august the 15th was very much one of those moments when richard nixon appeared on national television through bonanza, a great cowboy show, not really my type, but many viewers to murder the show. he interrupted the show to say we are not going to allow the dollar to be converted into gold. this in many ways is one of the most african defense, the most significant things to happen in the the history of money. it was a very decisive moment for essentially people could not simply come into fort knox metaphoric weight and fascia are as $100. i want to get the full value. that was a consequence of the big, bad problems at the american federal government got into with the vietnam war and also pay for the great society. it just didn't work out. there was a deficit. there is a trade deficit.

>> still cocoa beach coke is this massive lawsuit that came out between the koch brothers. bill and frederick and other shareholders of coke in the trees and the other culminate in a boardroom showdown that charleston supporting. bill frederick and a couple of

some other company shareholders are trying to expand the size of the board. this added that deposing chavez says the chairman and they would've taken a greater role in the direction of the company. the ad result is the bill is tossed out of the company. a few years later -- >> righteous brothers. >> by his brothers. and there is a village or not moment in the book where, you know, the board has to sit down and decide postdate. >> a panel examines the increased use of robots to analyze mass communications. the subsequent loss of privacy and what it means from a legal and policy perspectives. the discussion was part of a universe i am a law school at annual conference on robotics. it is an hour and 10 minutes.

>> thank you, michael. it is a great honor to be able to present and discus a paper by two lawyers who i greatly admire. there is a good overlap between the privacy law and policy community of the robot. and if any of you care about your digital privacy right in that sort of been helping people have been minding the store for a comic kevin and amie are two of the most committed store commanders on the friend and they've done great work and continue to do great work to protect her privacy rights another digital rights. so it is a great honor to critique and comment and pull apart their paper for you. so the paper, which i don't know if it is inspired -- the title is inspired by the hall and oates song robot eyes are

watching, watching your every move. the audit surveillance basically makes the abstract that robots are reading your mail right now, repeat your e-mail. and ask the question whether her and in particular government nsa monitoring, scanning, filtering and process pain of the contents and associated metadata of our e-mail is a legal problem. particularly given the fact that with automated scanning, the robot or the algorithm can spy on us, can spy on all of us all the time. in some respects for a mixed crowd, this is a difficult paper to talk about. it is a very artful, impress is,

analysis of the legal code of digital privacy rights under the fourth amendment and under the electronic communications privacy act. originally i was 10 days to really dig in with you all and talk about smith beat maryland and some of the other case is that i've not even heard of. i realize for a crowd and technologies and policy types interested in the broad policy questions if we privacy lawyers were to do that, it would be a bit like a computer scientist talking about which protocols they prefer for packet switching functions and it would get boring very quickly. i'm going to talk less about the law and more about the policy questions and the implications of this.

okay, so a little bit about the law and why kevin and amie argue in the paper. the paper asks whether book collection and gaining by the government is illegal. the answer they have is yes. it is illegal votes under the constitution under the fourth amendment which grandfather the sunnis will expectation of privacy. in this case confidentiality of the e-mail at testing smith beat maryland and other important and well known, lesser-known cases. they also talk about the federal wiretapping act, originally created to deal with the problem of phone tapping by governments and private entities and the electronic communications privacy act. the ec pa basically for nonlawyers prohibits a lot of things and a lot of exceptions

are the basic prohibition is illegal both civilly and criminally for anyone to intercept the contents of an electronic communication using a device. but for warrantless wiretapping, warrantless monitoring, the legal question is whether the nsa is using a device, in this case the robot x 41 and a comment to intercept the comments of an electronic communication. entering very careful, very important and very sort of interest to close reading of the legal precedents, kevin and amie conclude not only is the intersection of content in electronic communication within the statute and the relevant precedents of the supreme court and lower courts, but also there

is a violation of 17 in which communications, parties, senders and receivers of e-mail how to reach will expect tatian apprise you. so i want to take a step back because this is after all a robotics conference in the thesis that the paper is that robots are reading your mail and we should care about it. i think whether or not robots are reading our mail to pen quite importantly upon what actually is a robot and whether

we should define a robot in a way that captures the problem so we can deal with those problems on their own terms. i would say my personal view is this is not a robotics question and away best self-driving cars or drones or other physical and body banks are robots that isn't to say it's a tremendously important question. in fact i think how we deal with algorithmic monitoring services and filtering services and sniffers is one of the most important digital liberties questions of our time and i think it's to kevin and amie's great credit that they are confronting this question. well i quibble about whether it's a robot or not i don't quibble about the fundamental importance of the question.

the method that they used to address the question is crunching cases and they do, for the nonlawyers in the ram they do a simply magnificent -- magnificent masterful job not just in determining what the law law is but in marshaling cases, some of which wouldn't initially appear to support their position but really doing a close read of the important doctrinal scholarship to show an interesting original and nonobvious ways why our natural intuition for many of us that algorithmic machine nonhuman monitoring our communications is a privacy problem and is illegal under both the fourth amendment

and under at that. i guess i want to push a little on the correctness to my mind of the conclusion. what if the law didn't say that? i know, so i share the normative commitments on privacy and civil liberties and digital rights but what if it wasn't convenient the best reading of the law which happens to be the one that we want the law to be? this is a problem because if we are bound by metaphorical and logical reasoning, if we are bound by looking at what the cases say in sort of leaping from their entirely wicked get into a problem if it turns out the best reading of the law isn't the best reading of what we want a lot to be.

and the bandit -- example of this phyllo is a guy named olmstead. olmsted was a former seattle police officer who was sort of the al capone of the west. he was the largest bootlegger in the west and at one point was believed to be the largest employer in the puget sound region in the 1920s. he ran a massive bootlegging operation, bringing down barrels of whiskey from canada. the untouchables where they do essentially the same thing. olmsted was known to be a bootlegger. the police install the wiretap outside of his house on the phone line. they found all sorts of evidence from the wiretap transcripts that he was in fact a massive bootlegger. he was convicted on the basis of those recordings or transcripts and sentenced to a long prison term. he appealed to the supreme court arguing that the police should have a warrant before they

monitored his communications. the supreme court rejected the argument engaging in the essentially metal about jackley the same analysis that kevin and amie engage in here. they looked as fourth amendment law looked at the time and previous to that to the notions of trespass. they noted that the fourth amendment talks about people's persons papers houses and effects not in that order but tangible things or papers or persons or homes. electronic communication and electric communication along the wires was none of those things when it was merely electrons flying on the telephone wire. and that because there was no physical trespass into the home into the papers the houses or the effects by olmstead there was no search or seizure and therefore there was no need for

warrants and therefore the evidence was admissible. it's essentially the same methodology that kevin and amie use except those presidents were not as far-reaching or maybe chief justice taft didn't have the imagination and illegal the legal skills that kevin and amie do. olmsted of course is known best for the dissent by justice brandeis and look not at the narrow precedent focused upon trespass but look at the broader normative question. what should the fourth amendment detects and what this privacy main? why does it matter? regardless of what the president say and what analogies we can draw why does it matter that our phonecalls be protected from government surveillance? and that i think is the question that really we want to ask here which is why is surveillance b

bad? why is this a problem? not whether it is a trespass or whether there's a reasonable expectation of privacy but i think when we moved to new technologies as easy as lawyers to follow the trail. of course practicing lawyers have to follow the trail of precedence because that's a practice of law but more generally i think we could take a page from justice brandeis and ask what the normative questions are. and they think if the papers missing anything that is what is missing from the paper. it talks about privacy and it talks about interception and we hear about the nfl but what is missing is why for the unconvinced. so i am fully convinced and i love the paper but for the unconvinced are the people who might think that and not admitted reading of your e-mail

or an automated scanning of your e-mail depending on how we define what practice is going on, why that's bad and at the risk of more promotion of my work is the thesis of my book and the underlying article is that surveillance is bad for two reasons. it's bad first of all because it menaces their intellectual privacy, the privacy that is necessary when we are thinking reading and communicate with confidence making sense of the world making up our minds. when we know that somebody is watching when we are reading or when we are sharing a half-baked idea does not not publicly being recorded and streamed but when we are more privately trying to make up our minds if we are being watched we might not ask the question and they might not read the article. we might not wonder. we might be chilled to the main stream and if we care in a free

society about eccentricity about individuality and about freedom to engage with ideas, any idea no matter how dangerous we need privacy in that context. i think that's the insight that underlines justice brandeis in part dissent and underlies the supreme court's adoption of that view in the famous katz case in the 1960s and if that normative statement of why this really matters. not that we can line up the precedence that the reason we should line up the precedence in this way and the reason why the presidents don't line up this way and they tell a vacation are 10 notifications we should distinguish them in, but better tools to protect the fundamental value that animates not only this paper but the work of kevin and amie in their day jobs as lawyers in the trenches protecting our civil liberties. which brings me to a final point which is when we are trying to

understand the new digital robotic world in ways that are familiar to us we have to use metaphors. we have to use an logical leaps that say well this is kind of like that other thing. the example here hold your horses is a good one. the one that runs through the paper is interception but there are others leading and even saying that the computer is reading your e-mail is itself a metaphor. i will stop because i want to have a broad discussion about these questions. why this matters and why this is bad and how we should craft the law to promote human values but the point i want to make about that if force is metaphors and analogies are tools just like the law and we need to pick the metaphors because they do useful normative political ideological

work for us. and not just to follow the existing ones because they are the ones that we have always used. metaphors are tools. robots are tools as well and there's nothing natural external to humans of either a particular metaphor the use of a particular metaphor at the use of a particular technology or even at technological development whether robotic technologies or software. what's most important in this area of the law in this area of design is we need to work out advance to the extent that we can the human problems who want to solve. and the human values that we want to be sure we preserve in those solutions. we need to pick the right tools for the job to do that whether those tools are screwdrivers, whether they are computers, whether they are robots, whether they are computer code or legal rules. but i do want to put my quibbling aside. i want to stress that kevin and

amie have given us a very important paper on an essential topic of civil liberties and i think it's a testament really toward what a good patriot is and what good lawyers they are that their paper raises these really essential and critically important legal technological and ultimately human problems. >> thanks neil. i will have comments and then amie will have a few comments. so i think it's worthwhile very briefly summing up once again what questions the paper asks and what the answer is. what we describe is all the traffic going over the internet being copied into the network of secret words filled with these big computers that are looking at all the e-mail and looking basically for a list of targets in the content of your e-mail see if you are talking about one of their targets and then if the

season identifier that is looking for it safe that e-mail and sent it down another network and if it doesn't see that it just passes out of memory and essentially it's deleted. and the question, sort of a -- question is if it looks that your e-mail and it doesn't see an identifier and it doesn't store your e-mail has your privacy then harms? i don't think this is a philosophical or academic question for a few reasons. first off because it's actually happening and it's actually a question that you might still ask what does it matter? who cares what the answer to this is? it matters because it depends and we are both practicing lawyer so i think neil's point about this being a very doctrinally focused paper is a fair criticism. it's like that for a reason. we are litigators and we want to sue people and whether or not your privacy has been harmed is what's going to define whether or not you have standing to sue the nsa.

if we can articulate an argument while everyone who has passed through this machine have been harmed and yet we do not know whose people, whose e-mails have been selected to be looked at that basically puts us in a catch-22 where we can never sue the nsa well they automatically scanned for every person's e-mail. that's a personal problem for me. you know we first learned about this infrastructure from a whistleblower from at&t mark klein who showed up at her doorstep in 2005. that was part of the impetus for a lawsuit against nsa and at&t without organizations a lot of these ideas have been knocking around since then. and so i also want to clarify it doesn't address whether or not the stuff is illegal. i think i would actually require a great deal more analysis. we are asking the very threshold

question of whether or not this is an interception under the wiretap act or search and seizure of the fourth amendment. maybe that the answer to those questions are yes but it's illegal because it satisfies the exception or two reasonable under the fourth amendment or whatever. we didn't go into that in part because it would have been a much longer paper but also in part because we are not writing a paper about the nsa. we are writing a paper about whether automatic scanning of e-mails violates privacy. we are not philosophers. we are not coming if this is a philosophical question. we are coming at this as, well speak for yourself. [laughter] you know for me at least like my best proxy, my best way of answering the question doesn't violate privacy is looking to the laws that defined what are -- when our privacy has been violated in asking the question based on that. that along with time pressure is one of the main reasons why the paper is especially long. i do think there's room to do

more about the particular harms of automated surveillance. the one that we address specifically and a paper and we do this in part through storytelling, is the particular danger of mass surveillance that is enabled by automated surveillance. for those of you who haven't looked at a paper we stepped through a series of interludes describing the surveillance in the room and then analogizing back to whatever person was trying to do that and then analogizing keeping the robot in the room to basically millions of human beings sitting there reading everybody's e-mail and of course those humans are reading a lot of e-mails. they are not going to remember anything and like your doctor they have seen everything and they're not going to be by what they see. and if they see the keyword they will pass it on if they don't they will shred it. i don't see how that is distinguishable from having a robot do it and yet we would all agree that if they had an army

of people sitting in that ram reading our e-mail with these keywords that would violate her privacy and that would be search or seizure. so we are partly through storytelling trying to draw the analogy to save basically in this goes to the crux of the legal argument this automated process is not different from an agent of the humans who want to do it but can't do it because they don't have the capacity to sit down and read everybody's mail. in that way these automated engines are not violating your privacy less. rather they are enabling humans to violate your privacy more by scaling up to something massive debt near humans couldn't have done was like neil is also the subject of a paper by myself and -- called the economics of surveillance making sense out of the usb coe-jones which draws out the dropping cost of surveillance such the things that were impossible to say a

few years ago are now cheap and easy such as it used to take a team of guys in the car to follow your core berkeley and now we can follow countless people covertly for days and what that means for our privacy in the future as well. so i think i have somewhat address some of the things that neil has brought up. amie. >> so i think one of the first questions that was brought up is our in a provocateur and if we are not we should all just leave or at least kevin and i should leave and let you all talk about robots for the next day. one of the questions i heard about was does it matter how big a robot is or isn't molecularly small and i think that's an important question here. if you have her example and i'm going to use more metaphors, if you had a team of humanoid

robots opening letters and then using an algorithm to determine if those letters are passed on to the government you would say that those were robots. similarly if you had robot dogs walking up and down every single street and scanning houses to determine if they had heat emendations that reminded the dog of a pot farm being produced inside the house and then sent back an alert to the local police station saying you know this house looks like they are growing pot in this house doesn't in this house does that robo dog would also be a robot so does it matter when you take the physical piece out of it and put it into a computer and have the same effects occurring? can this message be passed along? i think that's the robot interest that we were getting too in this paper is that it really is acting on something. whether or not it is a physical piece or a bunch of bytes that contain personal communications

that is still something important. and then you has to comment you asked me this yesterday and he said what if the law didn't go your way? i was like yeah but the law does go our way. but it's an important question because the law also doctrine shifts and you talk about olmsted and you mentioned katz but katz was an important doctrinal shift after olmsted where they recognize the test would not work anymore and that would remove the reasonable expectation of privacy test. we recently saw another doctrinal shift in or the beginnings of one in john's in a case called pardinas where they started recognizing that didn't necessarily leave a olmsted behind. there is still a property interest that is implicated by the fourth amendment but katz just supplemented that so you have a reasonable assumption of privacy test in a property law tests for whether the gps device was physically placed on the car and that's very important as well because doctrine can shift.

and maybe in our new world it is time to shift away from the reasonable expectation of privacy test because we have persistent surveillance in public places. nobody technically, you could argue that nobody ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy anywhere and is that the future for the fourth amendment when you are spying on everyone all the time? i think jones in the dissent or the concurrences is starting to go that direction starting to look at the persistence of the surveillance and how much information is gathered and over how much time and we are starting to see another doctrinal shift in that direction. so, it's possible that we will have to reevaluate this under another test but the great thing is we were able to determine under the current test in the current case law that a search has occurred in a violation of the fourth amendment has occurred. even if we get a better test later on we are already there.

>> let me say three or four sentences. i suspect this is a question that almost everyone in the room has strong feelings about. one really does need to be intimate with the microphone and able to project to the room. think that's right and i would really like amy's point about the letter opening physical robots versus the software agents and i think that essentially we are in agreement. this was the problem and olmsted. and that doctrine was a physical doctrine and the question is when the physical trespass reading once mailed by the physical police officers tiny constables are full size constables, whether we needed to adjust the test to take account of the change. but that i think is ultimately i think maybe my point of

disagreement or at least the point that i want to push them on is why is that the case and what values are served by changing the test? the test after all like a robot or like a software aai is a tool and simple countries and i like that metaphor although they are high-powered washington litigators. there is some false modesty going on there but they are litigators. what litigators have to do come even litigators that don't appear before the jury says they have to tell a story. they have to tell a story which explains to the unconvinced because i don't need any convincing that this is right. but if we were to roll out this argument it will not be met with universal acclaim either in the corridor is digital or physical of the nsa or in the federal

judiciary which is ultimately the audience that has to be persuaded by these questions. i think as past and brandeis diverged in olmsted over the physical digital distinction based on what values were important prevention from trespass or protection of intellectual privacy in communications that doctrinal argument needs to be intertwined with a normative story, rooted in our human values and our constitution. absolutely but that story is a necessary piece because just like software legal doctrine is malleable and can be constructed and used to build any sort of thing but we wanted to build good things and in order to figure out what a good thing is we need that political ideological normative story. and i think that is what us on the side of table many people and grandpa to care about do care about these issues have to

explain to those who were either unconvinced or on the fence wanting to be convinced that not having heard the story that justifies the change in the test or the interpretation of the doctrine in a way that protects this. i would also add i think kevin is exactly right that the agency theory here is a tremendously significant legal innovation or discovery that they have found and told a good story in the cases. >> so we are happy to take questions from the back queue. we are using the microphone in the back of the room. and again general rules if one can identify oneself then we will get cracking. steve: and i just wanted to

thank you for your thought-provoking paper and one of the things i've been thinking about and i will mention two things. one of the things i've been thinking that is generally the transition from physical to digital and how the law doesn't seem to have caught up and the example that i give is in the 1990s when i was really first thinking about the internet and i was trying to do quote unquote quote unquote computer a lot as i saw some these cases having to do with insurance coverage for the loss of some kind of data center and a claim was put in by the insured to seek compensation for not only the loss of the hardware but also the loss of the data and of course policies weren't very sophisticated at the time that the courts basically said well you can recover for the loss of hardware but data are intangible and therefore they are not covered by the policy. therefore in the eyes of the insurance policy and therefore the court these data have no words and i was thinking to

myself this is all about the data. the hardware are commodities. it's all about the data and i think you are seeing the same kind of thing with this transition from reading a physical paper to reading people's e-mails. it's all about the data so that might be something to think about in terms of further refining your craft. the other thing i would give you a little bit of a practitioners data point is what you are writing about has real difference in part because for the first time last week in a contract negotiation which i'm trying to help negotiate an agreement for an internet-based service, a customer of the service wanted to impose a term on us saying that if my client becomes aware of government surveillance that we have in opposition to notify the customer. mass surveillance completely

unconnected with legitimate antiterrorism activity and focus on particular individuals that mass surveillance that a customer, my client has an obligation to not only notify the customer but also to file a lawsuit to try to stop the mass surveillance and basically take on the nsa. i applaud the opposing counsel for coming up with the idea and jumping on an issue of topical importance but on the other hand it was quite a burden on my client. but yet you are seeing something straight out of the news in contract negotiations. if this program didn't exist my client wouldn't be incurring these expenses. >> so i grew to be totally about the data versus hardware question and in fact i was just at a conference in toronto were one of my fellow attendees had lost her laptop in the airport on her way to the conference. someone had stolen it and it had an entire chapter of her upcoming book on it that had not been saved elsewhere.

she was like i just lost it. we were talking about how there should be a repository for people who have stolen devices to upload the contents of that device because you really lose the hardware. just give me my data back and i won't file charges on you. go ahead. >> on the first part about the law is a truism. the law isn't fast enough and technology is much faster than our doctrine can keep up. luckily in a lot of ways in a lot of these issues we have ready metaphors. some of them are metaphysical metaphors like cyberspace that helpless. for example in the issue of at the. this is a love that inadequately protects the cloud. we have now for years been

arguing and its strong argument that the date of easter in the cloud is analogous and should be treated the same way in terms of privacy protection as is the day we stored in our personal file cabinets. i think we will ultimately win that battle but even with a metaphor it's taken many years. we are working on this issue that we have ready physical metaphors from football interception to telephone switchboard operators to drug sniffing dogs and you can distinguish that analogy and simply the idea of millions of people sitting there reading what everyone to e-mail we have some pretty strong arguments and analogies you can make. what freaks me out is when the technology could so weird that ready physical analogy, there are no ready physical analogies. we can barely keep up with easy issues and i consider this to be one of easy issues. when things get really really

weird such that there is no ready analogy in the physical world that is when the law is not keeping up. the law is falling far behind. >> i will make one point in the contract negotiation. we set out to programs operated by the nsa under one of their authorities. the program where they actually go to the providers and they ask for information and the backbone program we talked about in the whole paper for they are just getting information off of the wires of the internet. and it's very hard for i think in many cases the providers to know that the information taken off the backbone is being taken off. so we won't get that notice that the program is happening and given to the provider but what i think we are moving toward is actually world where they are are in contract that you have to secure the data as to the point that data cannot be picked up in the digital format. that is something we are very aware of but not necessarily

looking at it. there's a huge problem with authorized access how much information are getting and how much information the government is requesting that also been going around and getting information off the backbone to make doing what you are doing to make sure this can't happen anymore. >> very quickly on the first about the physical digital i think the first part of your question answers the second. so you set on the one hand it has anonymous value and then you said but securing data is costly. i think the fact that data has value perhaps justifies, maybe not for everyone and maybe not the obligation to file a lawsuit but how fantastic i would be a lease from my perspective. but i think that the fact that data creates value but also creates risks to the company but also to the users whose data is being safeguarded. i think it actually does cancel

itself out to some extent and it's actually okay to impose obligations of privacy and security on private entities. i think it also shows how this is not just a government problem or a government versus citizens problems. the intermedia -- the intermediaries are an important part of the puzzle. we can call that a robot or we can call an agent. we can call it a vice. the other example that have been used as we can call it a cloud. we can also call it the fault or the data locker. compare icloud to drop box and the various senses that connotes about security and by overriding point today is that the choice of those masters and the choice is natural and we should make those choices consciously not because we have been using the metaphors before but because the metaphor helps us to capture the human and legal and social values and we cannot let her

metaphors given the way of our values. even well-worn metaphors that are easier to follow down the path. that is a metaphor as well. >> from stanford university school of love. i loved this paper and i especially loved amie your take on the reasonable expectation of privacy. you say tests should just be chucked it because it is no good and i agree with you for the fact that we can't decide what the term privacy means if it means anything so on that point i would like to pick up on it's important to create a story and it's important to create a narrative. although i know you say you are litigators i actually think that you may have the beginnings of a very interesting narrative that i haven't seen played out yet.

.. i wonder if the story that you are creating year, the harm to surveillance actually occurs when control is gained by another. not loss of control but rather and other gaining of control because that is really what enables the harm air and allows us to talk about privacy not

people. "we want -- exodus driving in his work about the surveillance of power disparity and the resulting power disparity that creates of -- no wonder what you think about that. >> yes to all of that. i mean, clearly one of the overall themes of the paper when we step through these to be interception, the statutory analysis and the appease urinalysis. in some ways the robots are irrelevant. the real moment for when an interception occurred was when the government gained control of a copy of your communication such that you no longer have the ability to decide how it was

disposed of. it was taken out of the regular transmission path and someone other than the regular intended recipient gained control. the metaphor that you mentioned was an interception and the ball . the ball is intercepted. the moment that happens the other team has gained possession maybe that they fumble in the media afterward. in no, it gets to the end zone and they give a touchdown, but whatever happens after that moment is irrelevant to the fact that it was intercepted. and so this also reflects the theme that uc like the recent privacy, the fourth amendment in a world without privacy in something you are seeing in discussions around big data now. we are moving away from discussions about privacy and moving more toward discussions a power and how data and access to

data and imbalances and access to control of data effectuate power relationships. in a way this ultimately goes back to my cocktail party version of my answer to the question of why should i care about surveillance? i do not care if the nsa has a copy of the recipe that my grandmother some your never. my answer to that question is always, it is not about you, you narcissist. it has nothing to do with you individually or whether you feel creeped up violated. has to do with maintaining the conditions for a democratic society. if we live in a society where those already with power also have the power to automated the look at our private communications to see if there is anything interesting to them that might threaten their power, that is much bigger than a privacy question and certainly much better -- much bigger than

whether you feel personally violated. that does not come back on me paribas. >> to bolster everything that i agree with, we spent a long time looking at the diagram that used to be behind me and trying to figure out when the privacy harm occurred and what it was. they're is a very long discussion about our that we tried to work can and will continue to try to work into this paper. eventually we came up with, it occurs at the point that communication is originally diverted. it does not matter what happens in the box. it was not one. because no matter regardless of if they discarded or key bit, they now have the decision to make, the robot has a decision to make about what to do. they have put it into the robot and the control has been taken away from the person. the moment it was diverted a car

has occurred no matter what's. >> i think these are great points, and i agree with everything that has been said, but one thing, if the robots are irrelevant then maybe they are irrelevant to the stories. i love the title. >> relevant to the search. >> relevant to getting the paper before this great comfort, and i am glad that they did. i wonder -- >> i will say, there is another about bad indisputably involved with robots which is one that any mention to although evidence itself driving cars driving around -- >> i mix metaphors cars drive around the neighborhood during he said some of the house is to try and touch marijuana crop operations. you know, the supreme court is found that during that type of scanning is a search of the

house. i think that metaphor, which is different but raises the exact same issue sort of demonstrates that robots are not necessarily relevant. there are perhaps less relevant. >> i would say they are all agents, which is the real power of the paper. if the agency. and that is a story. i think it is a really powerful one and ties in nicely with the neutral existing legal rules. on the nfl metaphor, i like it, but i like sports of football. about, you know, we have to be careful. my work for the interception part, but we cannot let fourth amendment law be sidetracked by the nfl. i am english, but -- >> american football.

>> american football, right, as opposed to real football. encroachment by at offensive linemen before snapped, interception, but the play is called back, declined afterward by the offensive team, which is complicated, but the point is, we cannot let the coolness of the metaphor in prison. it is useful for the point they use it in the paper, but we know need to start say no more. we are doing privacy law and civil liberties law and democratic society paul law, not football long. >> the original miami school of law. and going to ask you guys to speculate about legal doctrine, one of you is a great expert. in order to set up doctrinal points above so the case you're talking about is a very funny case because the key point of it

is a reasonable expectation of privacy based upon the fact that most people don't have heat sensors. heat sensors are built into the iphone. that case would not hold the reasonable expectations and more. one of the achievements is that it puts agency law read at the heart of the mechanicals iran's problem. you know, 50 percent of your paper, we take the active the agent and contributed to the person. that gets us where you and i want to go so long as they're is a reasonable expectation of privacy as regards to the action of the person. the question i ask is, using agency lobbied, can we use agency law as a sword? and this is something that amy was talking about. how can we deal with situations where there is no expectation, and that is important. they said that we have this one

way ratchet for technology becomes more common. we need to -- the shift may not be enough. it is temporary. we may need this sort. you know, given that a little bit by jones and other recent cases, how can we -- is there a way we can use this agency idea to fix things that our party doctrine, banks, whenever? and the reason why these questions seem to be so hard is that if i wanted to march open up of privacy bank and give you a contract, the maximum amount permissible bylaw protected you're right giving you more reasonable expectation, i could not actually give you much more than my bank gives me know because of the world of law and regulation. control is what they can offer me. the same thing, sanctions and lots of other infrastructure.

it is not enough to my worry, merely to take their idea and try to turn it into a sword. the -- we then run into lots of other problems. what do we do? i have a few thoughts on that. i don't want so become the questioner and ask you, but i am confused about why this is simply a question about how we address reasonable expectation privacy. i am not quite seeing the linkage between ages a question. i understood the paper right, the agency teary gets its power because if the principal had done this thing it would have been a violation of our reasonable as expectations of privacy. there have been a reasonable expectation of privacy there is no problem. am i misunderstanding that? >> no. >> so what about, you know, reasonable expectation. you need to put more light back

into reasonable expectation. the trouble is coming it is tough in a world where words have meetings and metaphors work talk about a reasonable expectation that is not reasonable. >> there are a number of really interesting things. on the general expectation of privacy question, concerned. we have seen through jones as the alternate path to ways that increase technological capacity constraints and are reasonable expectation of privacy rather than diminish it. twenty-eight days of gps tracking is a search and rot -- violates a reasonable expectation of privacy even the that information was not exposed to the public. that shorter-term technological unassisted tracking would not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. and five of the justices in that case tell that it was not the tracking that was a violation.

and so that shows their is a concern on the supreme court that even just using technology to aggregate information could violate your expectation of privacy and in that way increase the capacity to surveillance and it was more protection than we had before in a way as a counterbalance to the issue of capacity, making what was the search no longer a search. on the agency question, there is an interesting double-edged sword that we want to address in the paper. we did not have time. we cite the paper. in the fourth amendment context he argued that it should not accounted for robot reaches reno trough for the men in perspective in part because he feared that if it does count then that will actually eliminate our expectation for privacy.

that is, to the extent we have a lot of robots looking at our e-mails to scan id for spam or viruses or to allow that neutrality violations or service that toward ever, if that counts and we have agreed to that or otherwise have allowed that then that could mean that we have given up our overall expectation of privacy. i fear there were killing the fourth amendment to save it. i am more concerned about what comes from government surveillance than private surveillance. i think there are plenty of exceptions and ways of playing with the law. allowing that kind of behavior does not eliminate a reasonable expectation of privacy. i feel pretty comfortable. it gets into the rationale. we don't have a privacy expectation in the numbers are

gile. one of the key reasons they said that was because -- and i think this goes stage by a cs around technology, well, you know, human telephone poppers -- operators use to connect our call. the fact that they have no automated the process does not change the fact we have exposed that information. we give it that and use that to our advantage and say it is good for the goose, good for the gander. it does not make it any less of an invasion. i don't think we have fully adjusted. >> another way could answer the question. we agree with you kneele and michael and woody. the real genius of our paper is

not the use of the word robot in the title but the use of the word agent. we talk about the national security agency and the national security agency as agents and some of them are human beings and some of them are software agents, maybe some of them are scary robots, to. and those agents follow the wishes of the principal, and it does not matter whether they are accomplished through a software agent or a human agent or a scary killer robot agent. what matters is that the agency is happening and the will of the principle is being effectuated through one of its arms or legs or agents or instrumentalities. and so the way i understand michael's question, we live in a world in which people say, i don't have any privacy anymore because everything is being tracked. a test of the fourth amendment for the innovation based upon

brandeis and olmsted that says we expect an expectation of privacy that people have and also one that nasa's to society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable and normal inquiry. there is no subjective expectation anymore privacy goes away. there are two ways to fix this. when it comes to the reasonableness we should look for lawyers. with your lawyer this might be publicly known information, but they are under a duty as your agent not to expose under any circumstances.

it can protect confidence, sharing. ironically enough that sharing can take place. >> it occurred to me that over the last 200 years has been a massive erosion in the public's concern of privacy. if you think about what our founders were trying to do with protecting our papers and effects and preventing interception of our mail, essentially a free ice cream that we did when we sign up, let's the sacrifice the privacy. you have heard the free as grand jury. >> i did not get the as gramm. >> sorry. they're is a little bit of a theme, i guess, in privacy discussions on articles and stuff. they call it the free ice-cream

problem. people will accept any crazy terms of use, including indemnification of the service that they are providing and limitation of liability to the amount of their subscription. they will do anything for the free ice-cream. that is the thing. it is going around. people are thinking, okay, i will klick, i accept these insane terms of use. that is the reason my this expectation of privacy just kinda disappeared. the only people who were terrified of the lawyers because the lawyers are thinking how do i defend my client in court when the contents of every e-mail that they have ever sent are exposed for consideration? that is one thing. how do we expose this problem to

the general public and inspire them said the upgrades? the same way that our founders route race, the same way that the british were outraged when, you know, the catholic doctrine originated. how do we manage the problem of the destruction of a pers durinr litigation when you may finally get the critical piece of evidence that was acquired by violating the privacy kicked out of velocity, but the person has basically been dragged through the mud in the public guy. >> i've won't speak for five minutes because he will yell at me. it is privacy debt? to people not care about the city more? my experience has been less that they don't care than they don't know and don't understand where their permission cannon is going to the extent that they do i agree with kevin on this point.

quit being a narcissist. but also, i just -- because you talked about multi-year litigation i had to go through this with my sister and be told that her facebook messages could be subpoenaed, even a private messages. she had no idea, which is an interesting place to put somebody in the midst of thinking about what is brevard was public they give up the privacy but do it contexture early and do not understand that there are instances when information believe the context in which to put into. a very rigid, specific, ruled found instances in not necessarily the ways they think about and in your everyday life. >> exactly right. it is all about power, but it is

about power on the consumer rights question. the imaging -- rummaging, but rummaging through the things to find diaries. evidence that could be used to blackmail or punish or will people will forecourts on charges of treason -- treason. that is the intellectual privacy argument. >> i think this might be controversial. more important have a democratic society and free as cream. on the commercial side also a question of power. it's a question of knowledge. we regulate it. it might be practically difficult to accomplish.

>> i want my ice-cream. >> she says she is. i think you should use that perspective more. i'm going to push back. he could not find it in the peace. and i think that there is a missing part of this project from the lead a gator perspective about first -- power, the complex series of hurdles.

>> being about power, this is like that last beef in all of those other pieces, which i think is really important. >> thank you. >> side. i am kate darling. i was just here to troll kneele. i am mad at him. laying down in history of robots . but basically i completely agree with you, the real argument here , intellectually dishonest or robots. i agree with that, but, i mean, you have talked so much about how people perceive robots now we have these completely unrealistic expectations from science fiction, and it just

sounds so different, robot is reading your e-mail. we're talking about getting people to care about privacy and, you know, i don't know, i am just trolling basically. if you had to be intellectually honest and be able to care "would you pick? >> that is directed at me. i want to say based on this entry would thinking of the robot make everyone happy? >> i want to be clear, particularly, that was one of my

critiques. i don't think it is intellectually dishonest. using the word agent is better. my concern about using at a tactical level robusta get people to care is, we may get people to care about the privacy issue, but then we create this whole problem with robots. we solve the privacy issue, yea for me, but then we create a huge robotics problem that the panel yesterday was talking about. i would say, when i say that robots are hammers, i said that robots, metaphors are hammered. hammers are good. we should just be clear that these are human constructions that our tools. that is all i'm saying. it is, perhaps, a colorful way of expressing it. toaster is even more colorful

literary. it is just metaphors, tools, robots, software, code : law, they are all tools. in that respect we want to build the good things. we can argue what good is. all severely that is all we have to realize. there is no mystery to this. it is just hard. that is why we're here. >> well, thank you all very much. i have two quick announcements. the first is, we have t-shirts for sale of front. did you want them, that is a wonderful symbol. the second, this is our last call to sign up. having done, this is the fun part, asking you to join me in thanking these wonderful panelists. [applause] >> we will see you in 15 minutes sure.

[silence] >> now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone anytime with c-span radio and audio now. 202-606-888. today's washington journal program and every weekday listen to a recap of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on washington today. ..

>> and later a look at afghanistan's economic future. just a few minutes ahead of retireme retirement, congressman john dingell spoke at the national press club on friday. he is one of two world war