and when you're thinking of a robot judge and i was jotting down my nose from one of the first words i jotted down was hercules. so that's a good sign for we thought dworkin will be an interesting model. we have said i think of the paper that we're not in a position in the paper to do all of the work in analytical jurisprudence to justify our selections work, you know, 10 years later we could come up with an answer. that being said, absolutely. like, i think there are other scholars and there is that could be very helpful to us. to me, we just had a chance to get to them in distress but that's something that i will look at spent before, jack, i don't know if what is it anything in response to rise question about fuller and its value because i don't have that much to say other than this is something i will now go back to and think very carefully about,

but yet, this is reiterating carissima sport. but hercules jumped out -- well, dworkin is hercules jumped out at us because it was the closest thing you get to like this is hercules is not a robot, but it shares a lot of the same features that we could imagine of the robot. so that was one of the reasons why dworkin found his place therefore sure. in terms of, just one more point since carissima brought it up about cast some sting. for us what we hope with part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people who are commenting in the field and some sting as a good example of that have been so focused on the question of functional capacity. and the debate so far is always a question of will we ever get there, like at the end of yesterday's panel the question

was, you know, how far or close are we to those kind of things that is a useful question to think about whether personhood is ever going to be on the table. but what we wanted to do in this paper was not sort of say that the discussion is a non-discussion because the robots aren't there yet. that wasn't our central interest in sort of talking about where are we at. we wanted to assume let's say we get there and then really sort of ask doesn't mean it's a slamdunk in the way that turing seems to suggest it is, and we say no. >> can i say something? i quite friendly don't care whether you use hart-fuller-dworkin or anyone. when i read your paper, what i think of paper is about is the key question. the deep question is, under what circumstances can we say that an entity has sympathy for others is part, understands their lot as another slot, understands

himself to be part of a community? is a question of reciprocity. underline all of your objections i think, even though you use brazen terms as a teacher's terms as a jurist but i think the type of questions of reciprocity and recognition. that's the reason why i thought that your hypothetical was a real problem because you structured a hypothetical in such a way that it looks like you have conditions of reciprocity. that's also why i talked about in the history of rhetoric because it's about these qualities, the appeal of the ethos, and not just low gross -- logos so you constructed this entity i want to say what's the other step. one toggle i would turn off to go to ryan's question is does he understand himself to be human? does he understand itself that he is part of the committee?

if he doesn't, and no, i don't want to invest in with authority goes that's going to trickster. he's very skilled of convincing people of things and making it. that they are in their of their own interest which affect he doesn't understand himself to be part of the community. from the pass over, there's the why sun and the wicked son. the wise son asks what are the institutions and the rules that we have, right, made for those. the wicked son says what is the meaning of this to you? by uconn excludes himself and by excluding himself he is denied the fundamental proposition and, therefore, he rebukes them. in the same way what's important for your robot is your wife is asking the same question. he says what does it mean to us. what's the right rule for us? if we start by assuming that he was saying what does this mean to you, you who are not me, i am merely trying to trick your pets what you. and, of course, i would want to

invest him with authority. >> it's an interesting irony though in one of the main reasons we made the choice for jrr could not believe, sorry, sorry, to believe to not come to not believe it was a robot was precisely to avoid anything in the center that would discount jrr as a judge because there was any level of dissent in and getting to be there. >> then that raises a really interesting -- part of your paper. if you believe you're a member of the community, if you believe these people you call your children actually are your children and will be affected by the decisions you make, if you believe our fellow citizens will be harmed or benefited by what you do and you understand that to be something that you care about, what more do you want from the guy? >> this is great stuff but i do have to point out we've got about 15 minutes.

>> neil richards, washington universal law school. i don't know if i'm healthy or anxious or both, but to small point and then the question. one, -- [inaudible] on jack's point, the privy council does receiv received aps from 27 territories, some commonwealth. i don't know whether new zealand is the one of them but the question, the paper and the discussion reminded me of the point yesterday, sort of cognitive the buffer that he puts into not think about fully advanced humanoid robots because there are so many pressing problems right now. and i love the thought experiment. but i wonder about whether we should think about fully human robots like justice robots or jrr, and whether supreme court

justices into the american model on the right vehicle to examine the question. because you think about the court's role for itself is that the law is not fully determined and there are unsettled questions, authority, inconsistent rules and after exercise high political judgment of the sort you and jacobin talking about for the last half hour. but that's a very different set of questions most legal questions. so many legal questions are much more determined. even at the micro level, right, many of us would accept regardless of her position, many of us would accept it's like an automated traffic detection system. this is your paper two years ago. you could have an automated system or a robot, whatever you want to call it to resolve those questions. then at the intermediate level questions of doctrine whether it's an answer where you can plug in fax into a legal test

and out comes an answer 100 times in the box. what about those questions. the question is at what point do we get into the sort of moral doubt of justice robots. how far would you be willing to accept automated are all terrific decision-making? >> i'll jump in and add one quick thing. along -- soar. stanford university, cumberland school of law. also adding to the, i thought about, so you talk about judging with a capital j. i wonder about things like arbitration. would you be willing to take it to arbitration. i will tack that on to the question i would love your thoughts on that. >> just starting off, so, we tried to be cleared in our

second section which was called other possible worlds, recognizing what's so fun about this example is a gem straight to the top. but that the reality of how these things are just been to go as elizabeth pointed out quite clearly yesterday, we 100% agree with her that ai and the law where the goal is to develop ai applications can someone manifest themselves in legal practice will be small increments, iterative. and so you know, we already have systems in place where ai is being used to divide property and disputes. those kinds of things. and we decided that one way of looking at the lens of what is, what are the sort of social implications of delegating these incremental steps to the

machine, what, what is the significance of that that one way to think about it would be instead of just asking particular questions about each as it arrives and whether that delegation would be permissible or well informed, but instead we would ask the big question. so we recognize from the outset this project isn't meant to be directly applicable or comment specifically on some of those kinds of things. but i think it's practically and beautiful that those things are starting to happen. and that we are seeing those kinds of things. and i don't think any of the considerations that we're making in our paper seek to speak against those things necessarily, but it is interesting to ask the question if we got this incrementally what will that when someone asked a jrr question 30 years and i would've all sorts of ai embedded in law. >> very briefly, i think in terms of that kind of process or

entity being available for something like arbitration, like something for the most part you can see it as a private contracting of a particular, a particular dispute resolution mechanism but it doesn't raise the same kinds of really societal, systemic commitment issues that in our sense of capital j. judging. >> i'm david post from temple law school. sorry, i've been waiting patiently to ask my question. i have a very civil question and it may be one of ignorance, but central it seems to be to this discussion has been this question, and i think, i think jack is saying it is a central to this discussion that it's a question of whether jrr, the robot, believes that it is

human, understands itself to be human. i think someone said it considers itself to be human. i'm having a difficult time getting in ahead around that concept. i really in the end as i said it may be complete ignorance but it don't understand how we would know or what it means to say that the robot abilities, i don't understand belief in this context. and i agree with you, it does seem the really critical whether i trust it. justice brandeis, i get that. he believes himself to be part of this. i know what that means. i don't know what it means in this context. >> i think to throw a hard line on some of the points we are mentioning them we were also be inclined to say that that question or that statement is nonsense. that's what philosophy begins with one language goes on holiday. we are not speaking sensibly in that sense. but i guess for practical

purposes one way of translating that was i getting into the internal space of the robot, which is we're not trying to do is simply that we once constructive step was such a way that the robot didn't proceed through the operations of daily life understanding or coming from the perspective of others. like not being part of the community. but then not consciously, he becomes, this becomes the sticking point spent am i right, jack, you on the other hand, think the judge asked that question to answer -- no? unavoidable? why aren't you fighting with each other now at this point, the two of you last night. >> jack would say because we are canadians. >> for those of you who haven't had a chance to read the paper the actual sentence was in graham to think it was human -- it was programmed.

[inaudible] >> susan, we're both psychologists in real flesh. i love this paper, and i think that this will be decided by many other areas such as psychology and this is great for robotic or permissions that are building robots. i just made some notes. not one, i'm going to offer jrr free therapy. the first thing that we would do is see the movie bicentennial man. i know his read the book but it's important to see the movie as well. also you are some questions i had. so u.s. robots and mechanical men in my eyes own jrr regardless of their intent. and this relationship, owner, is like a parent child to me. you have the responsibility to technology regardless of our intent.

instead of turing test in the future which is subjective in which even today other people might think it's been passed by various ai or robotic technology, i would like to suggest that we used for the future more of a hierarchy where it has been one of the variables of ai. and i think through all this also what it's like to be human will change in that all of us in addition to jrr and it's not just key that is robot. what may be, i may have a neural implant. i may have 80% of my body parts might be artificial. so i don't think jrr will be a robot by himself and i don't think that all the other humans are going to be just human. and lastly, i wanted to know if

his wife knew that she couldn't have -- he couldn't have children? i think, obvious curious about his organs, but if he could have children, i mean, maybe by the paper yesterday why not? >> we were deliberately vague about that last night i'. [laughter] >> part of the art of the narrative was meant to leave things open as even whether she knew that the robot succeeded in fooling his wife are not come and we are not left with any of those details. it happens to be an interesting coincidence that the real john roberts and his wife adopted children.

it -- especially those who read the short story evidence from irobot. very reminiscent of stephen in that respect. you had a string of things but the one that stuck in my mind to sort of address was the question of what would we now say about the corporate entity that owns the robot? i think it raises some very interesting questions, particularly one could imagine different hypotheticals where they decided for whatever reason that they wanted to decommission the robot while jrr was still on the court or a stepped in at the moment of the emergency and said dnr. or maybe even more controversially if they had came in afterwards and reanimated the robot and jrr came and said i believe i'm still a justice of the sub import of united states and what would ensue. a lot of these things were intentionally not open to provoke thought, and certainly one can't know or one would try

to offer answers to each of those kinds of things. >> hi. this is kind of snarky but i can't help but ask it. i'm holly glaser, gis speciali specialist. in answer to you, are you part of the community that you judged, what do you say about the rules about forbidding abortion for women which seems to be entirely passed by men? should we open a them? are the legal speak with you realize at this point i was making a to to be a member of community a judge. that's the point about the privy council. >> i missed that. >> but your point is that as a matter we should try to make sure that people are held the power of life and death over us share something with us and

sympathize with us and understand our concerns, right? >> no, i think that they should have to obey the laws that they make. that's the easiest thing to make sure that they won't make oppressive laws. >> but i take the case you just gave is a situation in which you argue -- the reason they are oppressive is the man on the court and sympathize on the women who are affected. >> they will never be in jeopardy of having to face of that law. >> judges will never be in jeopardy of the same problems that criminal defendants are you. so you think no judge could ever sit in criminal defendants case? >> no. i think that decisions about women bodies out to be left to women who have to face the consequences. no man will ever get an abortion until robots, nextgen give a birth. >> i think that's a good point but it does have the effect of

roe v. wade are never been decided because their no word -- there were no women on the court at that time. >> in the back. how many people are still waiting to ask questions? one. this will be our last question before the break. >> great. i want to provoke some thought about the idea of bias and objectivity speakers tell people who you are. >> kevin bankston. it seems in certain ways a robot judge would be particularly portable and particularly in vulnerable to bias. in particular, it seems that one of your key criteria for whether jrr would be a good judge is enmeshed in the human committee yet it seems that could actually be a great feature of a judge rather than above. second does the question of what about the biases of the people who program jrr? on of those more or less relevant than say the biases that were programmed into human jrr by his human parents and

third and finally, i thought it was worth noting the potential biases injected by someone who hacks jrr, unlike a human -- like a human judge actually, this judge could be corrupted. we deal with without by giving them lifetime tenure. how might we address the threat of a judge being hacked? to me i much more to much less concerned about a robot judge's humanism than -- >> i think it happened last week. [laughter] spent i'm much more concerned about actually getting hacked. but anyway, so curious about your thoughts on potential bias or lack of bias. >> sure. well, one of the things you will have noticed about our papers by three you asked those questions is because we didn't address the idea that jrr was any more or less biased than any human

being. and i think that they both take the same line as jack which uses a jrr, any programs about come to the extent there's any programming of bias is at least in a very strange hypothetical that we've imagined is no different than anybody else who was a classmate at harvard law school. so those that didn't, those didn't enter a thought experiment in any way quite intentional because we felt there was enough to address there. i think, for example, when you drove us down to the level of smaller incremental ai and the law hype application, we would be very concerned about those questions, about programming. so in other words, i don't discount the bias questions here, but one of the things that i know carissima and i discussed quite a bit and people are anecdotally would've heard about the paper would say, you do, it's interesting. we think there's probably a lot

of people who would think that this isn't such a controversial thing, that judges of the u.s. supreme court seem quite robotic in any event and judging really is a means of masking bias through technique anyway. so those kinds of things were to first and foremost amongst the problems that we address. the hacking issue of course is an interesting issue and it's a different kind of argument one might have, i would most likely have against. if there are security type issues that there are possibilities inherent in the robot that are inherent in humans, that would probably be a different kind altogether, but one i think that if we are getting to the level of asking questions about whether, for example, we might have a system whether it's an arbitration system or something, we would want to ask all of those questions, absolutely.

>> we are open in the paper. we acknowledge that we don't address the degree to which he has unique individualized experience, right, from his interactions over a number of decades. we just don't know how that has impacted and it's likely that has been impacted on him in some ways just in the way that a human judge is the product of a realm of in depth experience and interactions. >> i just wanted to for those of you worried about bias in the supreme court related to your question or i just want to assure you all that the current supreme court is sworn to uphold the law equally between the rich and the very, very rich alike mac. >> and on that happy note, please join me in thanking the panel for the interesting discussion of lost much we are going to try to stick to our schedule which means your break shrank by about two minutes. we will come back here at 10:00

sharp. see you then. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> and now another panel discussion from this conference over the university of miami law school. speakers examined the increased use of robots to analyze masking occasion but the subsequent loss of privacy and what it means from a legal and policy perspective. >> thank you, michael. it's a great honor to be able to present and to discuss a paper by two lawyers who i greatly admire, and if there's a good overlap between the privacy law and policy community and if any of you care, to the non-lawyers if you care about your digital privacy rights and has sort of been hoping that the people have been minding the store for us,

kevin and amie or two of the most able and committed star miners on that front that we have and they have done great work and continue to do great work. our privacy rights and other digital rights. so it's 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 you, watching your every move. a law and policy of automated mitigation surveillance basically makes the thesis the abstract the robots are reading your mail right now, reading your e-mail. and asks the question whether private sector, and in particular government an essay is also marketing, skinny, filtering and processing the

content and associate metadata of our e-mail is a legal problem, particularly given the fact that with automated scanning the robots or the algorithms can't spy on us, spy on us all of the time period in some respects for a mixed crowd this is a difficult paper to talk about. it is a very artful, impressive, geeky analysis of the legal code of digital privacy rights under the fourth amendment and under the privacy act. originally i was tempted to really dig in with you all and talk about smith versus mount and some of the other cases which i had not even heard of,

but i realize for a crowd -- smith v. maryland, policy types interested in the broad policy question, if we privacy lawyers were to do that it would be a bit like computer scientists talk about which protocols they prefer for various sorts of packet switching functions and they would get very boring very quickly. so i'm going to talk less about the law and more about the policy questions and the implications. okay, a little bit about the law and that kevin and amie argued in the paper. the paper asks whether bulk collection and skinny by the government is illegal. and the answer they have is yes. it is illegal both under the constitutional requirements of the fourth amendment which grant to all of us a reasonable expectation of privacy, and in

this case confidentiality of our e-mail, accepting smith v. maryland and a bunch of other important and some well-known, some lesser-known cases. they also talk about federal wiretapping act, originally created to do with the problem of phone tapping by government and private entities. the electronic committee should privacy act. it basically for nonlawyers prohibits a lot of things, a lot of exceptions but the basic prohibition is it is illegal both civilly and criminally for anyone to intercept the contents of an electronic edition using a device, unless please get a word and various other requirements. but for wireless wiretapping, where it was monitoring, the question, the legal question is whether the nsa is using a device, in this case a robot in

room 641, to intercept the content of an electronic communication. and through a very careful, very important and very sort of interesting close reading of the legal precedent, kevin and amie conclude not only is their intersection of content in electronic communicate and within both the statute and the relevant president of the supreme court and lower courts, but also there is a violation of something in which communications parties, us, sinners and receivers of e-mail, have a reasonable expectation to privacy. so i want to take a step back because this is after all a robotics conference. ..

presented here two years ago, and those eminent scholars concluded after three or four sentences of analysis that a robot is a constructed system that displays both physical and mental agency but is not a live in the biological sense. it is embodied and manipulates physical things in the world as distinct from a disembodied a

guy. so under the richard smart definition the robot in 641 a is not a robot and all unless i suppose you can put arms and legs on it, but the activities are purely computer processing, perhaps distributing computing. but limited to one unit. it is not technically of robot. it's a computer program, perhaps an artificial intelligence, whatever that means. getting into other definitional problems. my point in saying this is not said promote my definition of a robot, not to pull a ship the jurisdiction of game on kevin and amy and say this is a robot conference. we could do that and go to the bar early, but it is a bit early

for that. the reason i want to make this point is because weather are not it's a robot, it's an important question, but more fundamentally , how we define what a robot is depends upon what works, what legal work, with technical work, what policy where we want the definition of a row what to do. if we think there are a particular set of legal or social a technical problems that are will body, that are worthy of separate treatment as robotics questions we should define robots and a way that captures those problems so that we can deal with those problems on their own terms. i would say my personal view is this is not a robotics question and the land itself driving cars are drones and other physical

things are robots. it isn't a tremendously important question. how we deal with of rhythmic maundering services and fell during services is one of the most important digital liberties questions of our time, and i think to kevin in amy's great credit they are confronting this question. while i quibble about whether it is a law not to my don't quibble about the fundamental importance of the question both in a technical and fundamental ideals chivalrous question. the messes that they use to address the question is crashing cases. they do they simply magnificent masterful job, not just in determining what the law is but in marshalling cases, some of which would not initially

appeared to support their position but really doing a close reading of the important cases and much of the importance doctrinal scholarship to show an interesting, original, and non obvious ways why our natural and tuition for many of us that of rhythmic machine, not human communication is a privacy problem and is illegal under both the fourth amendment and under extra, but i guess i want to push a little on the correctness, to my mind, of their conclusion. what if the law did not say that ? i no -- i share their is the logical and normal of commitments on privacy and civil liberties and digital rights. but what if it was not

convenient, the best reading of the law just happens to be the one that we want laws to be. this is a problem. if we are bound by sort of metaphorical and logical reasoning, if we are bound by looking at what the cases say and leaping from their entirely we could get into a problem here turns out the best reading of the law is not the best reading of what we want a lot to be. an example here, this rather smiley fellow is a guy called roy olmsted. olmstead was a former seattle police officer who was the of capone of the west. was the largest bootlegger of the west. and at one point he was believed to be the largest employer in the puget sound region in the 1920's. he ran a massive building operation bringing down barrels a whiskey from canada.

halsted was known to be a bootlegger. the police install the wiretap outside this house of fall in line. they found all sorts of evidence from the wiretap transcripts that he was, in fact, a massive bootlegger. was convicted on the basis of those recordings of transcripts and sentenced to a long prison term. he appealed to the supreme court arguing that the police should have that a warrant before they monitored his communications. the supreme court rejected the arguments engaging in the same kind of analysis that kevin and may be engaging here. they looked to notions of trespass. the fourth amendment's, peoples, persons, houses, facts, not in

that order, but tangible things. then in electronic communication none of those things when it was merely electrons flying on the telephone wire. because there was no physical trespass into the home, there was no search for seizure and therefore there was no need for warrants. it is essentially the same methodology that kevin and amy use except those precedents were not as far reaching or maybe chief justice taft did not have the imagination and the legal skills that kevin and amy do. best known for justice louis

brandeis to adopted this notion and look not at the narrow press of focused on trespass but the broader, normative questionable what should the fourth amendment , what does privacy mean, why does it matter? regardless of what they say and what analogy's we can draw, why does it matter that are phone calls be protected from government surveillance? and that, i think, is the question that really we want to ask your which is why is surveillance bad? not whether it is a trespass or whether they're is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the move to new technologies, it is easy as lawyers to follow the trail. of course practicing lawyers have to follow the trail more generally i think we could take a page from justice brandeis and

ask what the north questions are. i think if the paper is missing anything that is what is missing from the paper. talks about privacy. talks about interception. we to hear what the nfl. what is missing in the middle is why the unconvinced, for the people who might think that an automated reading of your e-mail or an automated scanning of your e-mail command might not even be a reading. wind that is bad. at the risk of more promotion of my work, the thesis of my book and then underlying article is the surveillance is bad for two reasons. it menaces our intellectual privacy, the privacy that is necessary when we're thinking, reading, communicating with

confidence, making sense of the world fifth when we are reading or sharing your half baked ideas not on publicly being recorded and stream, but when we are making up our minds if we are being watched we might not ask the question or read the article . the mainstream, and offensive. eccentricity, individuality, freedom to engage with ideas, and the ante in a matter how dangerous. we need privacy in that context. that is the insight that underlies his dissent. it is the insight that underlies the supreme court adoption of that view. we can line up.

but the reason why we should and the reason why if the dow we should discard distinguish them can come up with better tools to protect the fundamental value that animes not only this paper but as they are protecting our civil liberties. which brings me to a final point. 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 technological leaps the say this is kind of like that of the thing. the example here, hold your horses. the one that runs through the paper is intersection. but there are others.

saying that a computer is reading your e-mail is itself a metaphor. i will stop because i want to have a broad discussion of these questions. why it matters, how we should kraft lot to promote human values. but the point that i want to make is that metaphors, analogies, their tools dislike long. we need to pick the metaphors because they do useful normative political radiological work. they are the ones that we always use.

we do not know his people, whose team else that puts the senate as 22. that is a problem. that is a particularly personal problem for me. you know, we first learned about this infrastructure from a

whistle blower who showed up at our doorstep when i worked there in 2005. and that was part of the impetus for a lawsuit against nsa and at&t at that organization. a lot of these ideas have been knocked around since then. and so i also want to clarify, the paper does not address whether or not this step is illegal. i think that would actually require a great deal more analysis. the threshold question of whether or not this is an interception or a search and seizure. it may be that the answer to those questions are yes, but it is illegal or that it is reasonable under the fourth amendment. we did not go into that in part because that would have been a much longer paper but also in part because we are now writing a paper about the nsa. whether automated scanning of bnl's violates privacy. again, we are simple lawyers,

not philosophers. we're coming at this as, our best -- speak for yourself. yeah. you know, for me at least, my best proxy to my best way of answering the question does it violate privacy is looking to laws that define whether privacy has been violated. so i think that along with the pressure is one of the main reasons why the paper is especially long focused. i think that there is room to do more about the particular arms of automated surveillance. the one that we address specifically in the paper command we do this in part through storytelling. the particular danger of mass surveillance enable by an automated surveillance. for those of you have not looked at the paper, he stepped through a series of interviews describing the surveillance and the room and then analogizing

that to what a person were trying to do that in an analogizing the capabilities to basically millions of human beings sitting there reading everyone's e-mail. and, of course, they are reading a lot of the males. they will not remember everything. they won't be titillated. and if they see the key word it will pass it on. if not, they will shredded. i do not see how that is distinguishable from having a robot do it. yet we would all agree that if they had an army of people sitting in that room, that would violate our privacy and be an interception and a search and seizure. and so we tried to draw the analogy -- and this goes to the crux of the legal argument, this automated process is not different from but rather merely an agent of. they can do it because they don't have the capacity.

these automated agents are not violating your privacy. scaling up to something massive. i will promote my own work. the subject of a paper. making sense. all about the exponentially drop in costs of surveillance such that things that were impossible a few years ago are now cheap and easy. it used to take a team of guys in the car of folly of. now the government can follow up countless people four sets of days from their cell phone. what that means for our privacy in the future of long. so i think i have someone addressed. amy.

>> i think one of the first questions, are we talking about robots? if we are not college of all leaving the drink. one of the early questions i heard jen i got here, it doesn't matter how big. if it is molecular little. i think that is actually an important question. if you have more metaphors, a team of humanoid robots in a room opening letters and then using an algorithm to determine whether those laws are passed on, you would say that is just a robot. similarly, if you have robot dog walking up and down every single street scanning houses to determine if they had indications of a pot farm and then send back an alert to the local police station saying this

house looks like they're going pot, this house doesn't, this house does. that robo dog could also be a robot. you take the physical piece out of it. can this message be passed along ? the robot interest is that it is acting on something. whether or not it is a physical piece or a bunch of bites that contain communication, that is still something import. and then you ask me this yesterday. yes. the law goes our way. it is an important question because the law also doctrine shifts. he talked about olmsted. important doctrinal shift where they recognize that that doesn't work anymore. that is where we move the reasonable expectation of

privacy test. who recently saw another or the beginnings of one. they started recognizing that we did not necessarily get behind. there is still a property interest that is implicated by the fourth amendment's. to supplement to that. the reasonable expectation of privacy test and the property law test. the reasonable expectation of privacy test. we have persisted surveillance in public places. nobody technically -- we would argue that no one has a reasonable the expectation of privacy anywhere. is that then the future for the fourth amendment? i think jones and a sense

started to go that direction and look at the persistence of the surveillance and how much information is gathered and over how much time. we're starting to see another doctor off shift in that direction. so it is possible we will have to reevaluate. a great thing about our paper is that we were in will to the chairman of the current test and the current case law that a search has occurred and a violation of the fourth amendment has occurred. even if we get a better chess letter on where already there. >> let me say it may be 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 in order to project for the room. at think that is right. i really like emmy's point about the letter opening physical robot verses the software agent.

that doctrine was a physical doctrine. the question is, when the physical trespass breeding one's mail, tiny constables or full-size constables, whether we need to adjust the tests to take account of the change, but that is ultimately -- maybe my point, the point that i want to push them on his why is that the case ? what values are served by changing the text? after all like a robot is a tool simple country lawyers. there is some false modesty going on.

but they are litigated. litigators that don't appear before a jury. they have to tell a story which explains to the unconvinced. i don't need any convincing that this is ride. if we were to role of this argument it would not be met with universal acclaim. either in the corridors digital or physical or and the federal judiciary. the audience that has to be persuaded by these questions. i think as they diverged over the physical digital distinction based upon what values or importance for protection of privacy, intellectual privacy in communication, the dutch and all i get it needs to be intertwined with a normative story rooted in legal tradition and human values

and constitution. absolutely. but that story is a necessary piece. dislike software code legal doctrine is malleable and can be constructed and used to build any sort of thing, but we wanted to build good things. we need that political, ideological, nor a story. i think that is what many of the people that do care about these issues have to explain to those who are either i convinced or are on the defense wanted to be convinced but not having heard the story to justify the change our interpretation. i think kevin is exactly right. the agency terrier is a tremendously significant legal innovation or discovery that

they have found and told leg of story of in the cases. we are happy to take questions from the back. >> using a microphone in the back of the room. >> identify oneself. >> steve will again. generally the transition and how long does not seem to have caught up. the a sample that i give is in the 1990's when i was really thinking about the internet and trying to do computer law i saw

cases having to do with insurance coverage. a clam was put in by the insurer to seek compensation for not only the loss of the hardware but the loss of the data. of course policies were not very sophisticated that the time. the courts basically said, you can recover from the volos of the hardware. they are not covered by the policy. in the eyes of the insurance policy they have no work. this is all about the data. hardware, commodities. it is all about the data. you are seeing the same kind of thing. physical paper. you know, that might be something to think about. >> the other thing, i would give you practitioners at datapoint which is what you are writing

about has a real difference in part because for the first time last week in a contract negotiation which i am trying to help negotiate an agreement for an internet-based service, a customer of the service wanted to impose a term on not saying that my client becomes aware of government surveillance that we have an obligation to notify the customer, i mean massive balance completely unconnected with legitimate anti-terrorism individuals to my client has an obligation to not only notify customer of file a lawsuit to try to stop the mass surveillance. i thought, i applaud the opposing counsel for coming up with the idea and jumping on an issue of topical importance if

this program did not exist my client would not be in during these expenses. >> i agree with you totally. in fact was just at a conference in toronto where one of my fellow attendees had lost her lap top and the airport on away the conference. it had an entire chapter of her upcoming book on it that had not been saved elsewhere. we were talking about how they should be a repository for people who have stolen devices that plug the content because you are ready to and give up the harbor if you can get the data back. >> on the first point, it is a

truism. luckily and a lot of ways and a lot of these issues we have ready metaphors that help us grapple with these things for example, the electronic communications privacy act, we have now for years been arguing, and i think it is a strong argument that the data we store in the cloud is analogous and should be treated the same way to the daily store on our personal file cabinets. i think we will ultimately win that battle, but even with a radiant metaphor it has taken many years. we are lucky that we have a bevy of ready physical metaphors from football an exception to telephone switchboard operators

to drug sniffing dogs or if we distinguish that analogy. and simply the idea of millions of people sitting there reading everyone's e-mail. we have some pretty strong, you know, what freaks me out our when the technology it's so weird that ready physical analogies, there are no ready physical analogies. we can barely keep up with the easy issues. consider this to be one of the fairly easy issues. when things get weird such that there is no ready analogy in the the physical world, that is when the only not keeping up falling far. >> and then i will just make one note on the contract negotiation we set out to programs being operated by the nsa. the program where they actually go to the providers and ask for information and then the backbone program where they are just giving information off of

the wires that make up the internet. and it is very hard for in many cases the providers to know that deformation taken off of the backbone is being taken off. so you won't get that notice that the program is even happening. what i think that we are moving toward is a world where they are in contrast. you have to secure our data as to the point that it cannot be picked up. that is something that they are very aware of. we're not looking at the huge problem with unauthorized access to how much information they're getting in the affirmation that is being requested. what you need to do to make sure that cannot happen anymore. >> very quickly. the first point about the physical digital, the first part of your question answers the second. you said on the one hand state

has enormous value. but securing date is costly fixed. i think the fact that data has value perhaps justifies -- maybe not for everyone and maybe not the obligation to file a lawsuit but what of fantastic legal rule that will be. but i think debt the fact that did it creates all of this value and risks but to the users whose state is being safeguarded, it does cancellous of thought to some extent and argues that it is okay to impose reasonable obligations of privacy. also it shows of this is not just a government problem. the intermediaries are an important part of the puzzle. of the metaphors, weekend : a robot, an agent to made a vice. the other example, we can call it the clout. we can also : the data locker.

the very thing that denotes. my overriding point today is that the choice of those matters and is important in this natural. we should make those choices consciously not because we have been using the metaphor but because the metaphor helps us to capture the human and legal and social values at stake in that we cannot let our metaphors get in the way of our values even well-worn metaphors that are easier and the far less cognitive love the fallen down the path. >> i love this paper. i especially love your take on reasonable expectation of privacy and your comments.

i would tend to agree with you. we just can't decide what the term privacy actually means. on that point abbott like to pick up on something that was said. it is important to create a story, narrative. and although i know that your litigators, i actually think that you may have the beginnings of very interesting narrative that i have not seen played out yet fit. i wonder if you could draw on that a little more. so one of the big problems is we don't know what it means. one of the more popular ways, the right to a control information. this idea of control. that does not work we are talking about surveillance because you have already lost control. we say, okay. that does not count for surveillance. this is an issue about -- at least and we are talking about

e-mails. it is picked up along the way. there is control of all. then the privacy arm happened. but the metaphor of the nfl which i really love and is intuitive to me, i wonder if it is the way you are creating. harmful surveillance, another gaining control because that is really what enables the harbor here. it allows us to talk about privacy in a way in which kneele has described in some of his work. one of the ways in which the power disparity is created is when a third party gains control. i wonder what you think about that.

>> yes to all of that. i mean, clearly one of the overall themes in the paper when we step through the intersection , the statutory analysis, actually in some ways the robots are irrelevant. the real moment for win an interception occurred or when as seizure occurred was when the government gained control of a copy of your communications such that you no longer have the ability to decide how it was disposed of. it was taken out of the regular jazz mission path. someone other than the intended recipient can't control. and the metaphor that you mention was an interception and football. the ball is intercepted. the moment that happens the other team has gained possession they may fumble it immediately afterwards.

get to the in senate gets touched down. but whatever happens after that moment is irrelevant and so this does also reflected the that you see in works like meals of the recent privacy in the world, fourth amendment in a world without privacy in something you are seeing in discussions around big data. we are moving away from discussions of privacy in moving more toward discussions of power and how data and access the data effectuate power relationships. in a way this goes back to my cocktail party version of my answer to the question of why should i care about surveillance i don't care if the nsa has a copy of the recipe that my grandma simi. my answer to that question is

always -- well, it is not about you, you narcissist. it has nothing to do if you individually or whether you feel credo violated. it has to do with maintaining the conditions for a democratic society. and if we live in a society where those already with power also have the power to automated they looked at private communications to see if anything is interesting to them, that is much bigger than a privacy question, certainly much bigger than another you feel personally violate. that is going to come back to haunt me. [laughter] >> just to bolster everything, we spent a long time looking at the diagram that used to be behind me and try to figure out when the privacy harm occurred.

a very long discussion that we try to work in. and eventually we came up with it occurs at the point the communication is originally diverted. it was the one. no matter regardless of if they departed, if they keep it, they now have the decision to make, the robot has the decision to make about what to do. they have put it into the robot and the controls of been taken with the person. >> these are great points. i agree with everything. one thing, if the robots are irrelevant, maybe they should

fallout. >> indisputably involving a robot. first imagine self driving cars and driving around the neighborhood. >> mixed metaphors. >> driving around the neighborhood doing heat sensing to try and protect marijuana grower operations. the supreme court is found that by doing that type of scanning his search of the house. i think that metaphor which is a difference. the robots are not necessarily -- they are, perhaps, less relevant. >> i would say they are all agents. this is his question.

that is a story. in that think it is a powerful one. neutral existing legal rules. on the nfl metaphor i like football. we cannot let the fourth amendment law be sidetracked by the nfl. >> if there is an encroachment by a defensive linemen before the snap, the interception, but the play is called back, whether it is declined. which is complicated. we can't let the nfl our coolest of the metaphor in prison. it is useful, but we now need to

stop and say no more. we are doing privacy law and civil liberties law. if not the ball. >> the school of law. i'm going to ask you yes speculate, one of you is a great expert. inside the beltway. but this is the -- in order to set up a point after recite these. a very funny case most people don't have heat sensors. one of the great achievements of your paper, which i love, right at the heart of the surveillance , mechanicals a balance problem. in a sense we take the action

and treat him like the person. that gets us where we want to go so long as they're is a reasonable expectation of privacy as regards to the actions of the person. the question i want you to speculate about is how we use the law as a shield, this gets us on to something that amy was talking about before. how can we deal with situations where there is no expectations. that is important because supreme court doctrine, the zone of reasonable expectation shrinks. it may not be enough. the shield is temporary. we may need the sort. you know, how can we -- is there way we can use this agency idea

to fix things through party doctrine, banks, whenever. the reason why this question seems so hard is that if i wanted to tomorrow to open up privacy bank as keep your contract that to the maximum extent permissible by law protected your rights therefore giving you a more reasonable expectation of privacy. because of the world of law and regulation. controls, the same thing to a certain extent to, lots of other infrastructures. so it is not enough to my worry, nearly to take your idea and turn it. did we then run up against all kinds of other problems. >> just so i -- i don't want -- i am a little confused about how

we address reasonable expectation practices. >> as i understood the paper, the agency. gets its power because of the principal, it would have been a violation of reasonable expectations of privacy. there have been a reasonable expectation of privacy, there's no problem. >> the problem is you could say we need to put more live back into the reasonable expectation. it is very tough. talk about a reasonable expectation when it is not reasonable. there are a number of things we could talk about. the general reasonable expectation for privacy, we have seen a few alternate paths to

ways that increase is an attempt want to build capacity and increase rather than diminish the supreme court held 28 days of gps tracking of vehicle was a search. violates a reasonable expectation of privacy even though that information was exposed to the public. shorter-term technologically unassisted tracking did not violate the reasonable expectation of privacy. five of the justices in that case held that it was the tracking, not the attachment of the device. that shows their is a concern on the supreme court that even just using technology to aggregate loss of formation that was public could violate iraq's rejection of privacy and in that way increase our capacity to be surveiled can give us more protection that we have before

as a counterbalance to the issue of increasing capacity could make what was a surge along research. there is an interesting double edged sword your that we want to address in the paper. in the fourth amendment context he argued that it should not count if a robot freezer in no in part because he feared that if it does count it will eliminate our expectation of privacy. to the extent that we have a lot of robots looking any mellitus gannett for spam or viruses or to allow natality violations the, is that counsel and then we have agreed to that or otherwise have allowed that that that could mean we have given up our overall expectation of privacy.

i feared that he was killing the fourth amendment to save it. i am more concerned about government surveillance than private surveillance and that think there are plenty of exceptions and ways to play with the law. that is what we have enough cases. it is not an easy issue. a question of the automation rationale which is the case where the supreme court says we don't have enough privacy. and the reason they said that was because -- and i think that this goes to age by seas around technology telling you know, human telephone operators use to connect our calls. the fact of the phone companies have automated the process does not change the fact that we have exposed that information. wheat pit that and use it to our

advantage in the paper. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. automating this reading. but it is a valid concern. maybe adding a bit to it. they could answer the question. we agree with you the real genius of our paper is not the use of the word robots we talk about the national security agency and the national security agency has agents. some of them are human beings. and those agents follow up the wishes of the principal, and it

does not matter whether those his wishes are accomplished through a software agent or human agent or scary killer robot agent. what matters is the with and the will of the principle is being effectuated through one of its arms or legs or agents or instrumentalities. if we live in a world in which people say i don't have any privacy anymore because everything is being tracked them a test that says we protect them and expectation of privacy that people have and also one that is acceptable, if there is no subjective expectation privacy goes away.

when it comes to the objective reasonableness we should look to lawyers. lawyers or doctors. anybody who has a professional duty of confidentiality. when you entrust someone with your data you are more or less saying this might be publicly known the information, but they are under a duty as your agent not to disclose under any circumstance. does not matter whether that person knows what is going on. it does not matter anything. and that is the way that agency can be used as a sort. it can protect confidence, sharing. directly enough fest so that sharing can take place. >> it occurred to me that over the last 200 years the public

concern of privacy. if you think about what our founders were trying to do, protecting a papers and effects of preventing the interception of carmel, essentially the free ice cream that we get only sign that for hormel or something like that lets us sacrifice the privacy. you have heard the free ice-cream. >> they're is a little bit of a theme, i guess, privacy discussions. the free ice-cream from. people will accept any crazy terms of use including indemnification of the service they are providing and limitation of liability to the amount of their subscription. they will do anything for the free ice cream.

people are thinking, okay. i accept these in st. terms of use. that is the reason why this expectation of privacy just kind of disappeared. the only people who are terrified of a lawyer's because the lawyers are thinking, how do i defend my client in court when the context of every human live ever since are exposed for consideration. that is one thing. how do we expose this problem to the general public and inspire them to be outraged and the same way that our founders or our race, the same way that the british were outraged when a castle doctrine initiated. and how do we manage the problem of the destruction of a person's life during a multi-year litigation when you may finally get this critical piece of

evidence that was acquired by violating the privacy, kick down a lawsuit, but the person has basically been dragged through the mud in the public eye. >> i mean, i will speak -- i get this is privacy debt question of what. to people not care any more? my experience is less that they don't care but they don't know and understand where the information can in is going. to the extent that they do, i agree with kevin on this point, quit being a narcissist. but also, i mean, because you talked about multi-year litigation, had to go through this with my sister in florida and had to be told that her messages could be subpoenaed, even her private messages. and she had no idea, which is an interesting place to put somebody in when they start thinking about what is private

and what is public. you have to put it in context. people may give up their privacy, but they give it up contextual the. they do not understand that there are instances when your information can leave the context in which you put it into. i think there is lot of psychological pieces that go into that, but go outside of the law and lawyers are used to thinking of it in riches, specific, rule-bound essences and not necessarily the way that you think about it in your everyday life. >> on the nsa question it is all about power. but also with consumer rights. the reason it is in the fourth amendment is not because people are concerned about the government rummaging through their fangs but rummaging through the things to find diaries and letters and evidence that can be used to blackmail or punish or old people before courts on charges of treason. it was very much a political

liberty. and i think that sort of intellectual privacy argument as well, but it is an argument, he should carry out the fourth amendment because we care about a democratic society. this might be controversial and wrong, but it is more important to have a democratic society and free as current. and on the commercial side, it is also a question of power. exactly right, a question of limited choices, a question of knowledge and information. and where we have that output, human context, we regulate it. that might be practically difficult to accomplish, but that is the answer. i think that is the story that we need to tell. >> i just want to know if someone from microsoft and do what are your giving out ice-cream? [laughter] ..

which i agree it is, the very complex series of hurdles that you have to overcome to even get to -- >> petzold mother series of articles. >> if you're going to frame this as been about power, this is the last piece in all his other pieces, which i think it's really part of it.

>> hi, kate darling, m.i.t. i'm just here to drill meal because i'm so mad at him for saying we should treat robots with two years ago. but i completely agree with you that the real argument here is not robots unlimited intellectually dishonest user about in this context. i agree with that, but we have talked so much about how people perceive robots as asia to now we have is completely unrealistic expectations from sign fiction. nhs has no different. you know, a robot is reading your e-mail pursues your e-mail is being automatically scanned. so if we are talking about getting people to care about privacy -- i don't know. i am just curling basically.

but if you had to choose between being intellectually honest and actually getting people to care about these issues, what would you pick? [laughter] >> so that is directed at meal. based on this wikipedia entry that i just edited, they are robot. liquid taking a row make people happy? >> so why did i stop beating my wife is the litter question you're asking me? i don't it's intellectually dishonest to call a robots in a way to clear that particularly because that is one of my critiques. i don't think it's intellectually dishonest. they think using the word agent is better. my concern about the tactical level using robots to get people to care is the people is to care that the privacy issue, then we

create this whole problem with robot and resolve the privacy issue, for me and for her would be and ryan, but then we create a huge robotics problem with the problems the panel yesterday was talking about. i would say also when i say that robots are hammers, i say that metaphors are hammers, too. hammers are good. we should just be clear about his argument construction better tools. that is all i'm saying. hammers is perhaps a colorful way of expressing it. toasters a more colorful and terreri rooted way of that. just metaphors, tools, robots, software code, law. they are all tools. in that respect all of respect all of us in this room are engineers and we just want to build good things. we can argue what good is, but ultimately that is all we have to realize. there is no mystery.

but that is why we are here. >> thank you all very much. i have two quick announcements have been told to make. the first is we have t-shirts for sale at frye. if you want then they've got the wonderful symbol of the robot appeared second while, and this is the last chance to sign up for afternoon questions. having done that duty i cannot get to the fun part, which is asking you to join me in thanking these wonderful panelists. [applause] so we will see you in 15 minutes sharp. >> coming up tonight at 8:00 eastern, a look at step three. clean in assets of high-rise

buildings are a few of the tasks being performed in a rapidly expanding industry. >> well, this weekend, three follow me projects launched. one kickstart, one mars. follow me as one of the rings where the set to follow suit. a kid, skiing running, whatever and he said tuesday's 30 feedback keeps the camera focusing gets that kind of perfect cinematic hollywood view. that is on one level, you know, that is way with the generation once. on the other is a very complex artificial intelligence, autonomy function using gps and image recognition, spotting you and creatively trying to figure out what the right angle is not the son,, in the shadows, this

is the stuff though a science fiction a few years ago. this is detroit you are looking for. this is just this weekend there were three projects at lunch and one of them just raised half a million dollars in a day. all based on our platform. i hasten to add. so that was just today. tomorrow this mapping function where talking about, so a christian is doing is this notion of construction. construction is arguably the number two industry in the world. agriculture is number one. so what this $300 copter can do with it one but not for her. it circles around the construction site, takes pictures, get sent to the cloud, in this case autodesk increased the 3-d model. madmen get stuck on to the model t. and sharing countries or update doing. it's happening every it's happening every day in an automated fashion thanks to the

recharging stations. you are the client. you want to know what's going on at the construction site. you can either drive or you can watch on the cloud, watcher building snapped onto the model you approved, watcher building up digitally -- are digitized, perfectly aligned. there is no bs. you've got ground truth, air truth if you will. that is a $300 copter. just imagine what's going to happen in five years.

>> booktv sat down with former secretary of state hillary clinton in little rock to discuss her new book, "hard choices"." >> you don't make peace with your friends. you make it with your adversaries who have killed those who care about your own people or those you are trying to protect. it is a psychological drama. you have to get into the heads of those on the other side because you have to change their calculation and math to get them to the table. i talk about what we did in iran. we have to put a lot of economic pressure to get them to the table and we'll see what happens, but that has to be the first. and i writes about what we did in afghanistan and pakistan, trying to get the talent into the table for a comprehensive discussion with the government of afghanistan. in iraq today, i think what we

have to understand is that it is primarily a political problem that has to be addressed. the ascension of the sunni extremists, the so-called crisis group is taking advantage and i liberate down in political dialogue in the total lack of trust between the maliki government, the sunni leaders and the kurdish leaders. >> more with hillary clinton saturday at 7:00 p.m. the dirt in the morning at 9:15 i'm c-span 2's booktv. >> author alan hussman shares a tale of two mississippi says the visit prospect taylor jackson. >> prospect hill was founded by isaac rossi was leverage neri were veteran from south carolina. when he realized he was going to die in the slaves would end up

being sold or just become commonplace, he wrote in his will that the time of his daughters that the plantation would be sold in the money is to pave the way to those to immigrate to liberia with a freed slave colony had been established by the colonization society. they call it repatriation. they talk about them going back to africa. you have to understand these people, most of them were americans. they have been here for three, four, five generations. it wasn't like they were going home. they were going back to the continent that their ancestors originally inhabited. but it was quite a risk. and so they took their culture, what a new here they are. of course some of them to the bad aspects, too. but that was all they had ever known. they built houses like this one

because after all they were the ones who built the house. they worry about is basically greek revival house is that freed slaves built in mississippi in africa and across the river was louisiana and liberia, which was settled by freed slaves should louisiana. there is a georgia, virginia, kentucky in maryland county and all these people came from the state in the u.s. >> florida history and literary life of c-span 2's booktv. >> coming up next, the communist party usa's 30th national convention at the keynote address from chairman sam webb discusses the impact of the 2014 midterm elections lapin economy. it marks another communist party officials on domestic and global issues. this is about 90 minutes.

>> hello. my name is chauncey robinson. i am from open, california. [cheers and applause] but i was born and raised in new jersey. and i am a member of the communist party and the wife see how. [cheers and applause] what i was asked to do was do a speech honoring our elders, so i'm going to do that. we are gathered here this weekend for the 30th national convention of the communist party u.s.a. it is a party that has had 95 years of his three, of struggle, dedication, defeats and victories. from each of those struggles that the party has any part of, we have been able to learn from this experience is in order to go forth and analyze the ever-changing political climate.

here in the year 2014, we still at the nation and the world in a state of unrest where the working class continues to struggle, fight and most of all survived. in a capitalist society hell-bent on our ex-dictation and demoralization. this weekend we are coming together to share our ex. as, learn from one another, analyze our current political situation and hopefully leave here with a better outlook for tomorrow. the keyword i think of when thinking about what we're doing here this weekend is experience. for i think experience greatly connects to how they go about talking about our current situation and how we go about our future. there have been things learned from our history that we stand on today that enriches how we think tom and decide on what to do: lowered.

and who is to have such a wealth of its you and the chuckle if not the elders of our movement, of our party. [applause] when i was asked to give a speech honoring our elders, i was fearful of being someone who would,, miss some things of the past and give a tone of the past being archaic, unmoving and john. recently he was afraid i would get it. and if something of a eulogy. [laughter] the thing is, this is not a funeral and the elders who are with us today in this room and with us in spirit in their local place of residency are still very much alive, inviting a wonderful resource of knowledge and the things that we are, the party we need to know in your mind to death in order to be the best we can be looking forward towards the future. political act to this james baldwin once said, children have never been very good at listening to their elders that

they have never felt to imitate them. i think this holds true with the case of the party. sometimes life is busy. the struggles of taste today can get us down or we get wrapped up in our own affairs that we can get tunnel vision. we can think this is the first time since being done, a problem is arising or a battle is being fought. the thing is the battle and struggle for the end of capitalist exploitation and for a society based on equality has done a battle the communist party has been waging for 95 years. [applause] it is a battle that has taken on many forms. describe it best as a culmination of issues. but this is a battle that is, for some time and we have elders, people in this very room and around the country who have been fighting for decades and continue to fight in it. we can at least hope in some

ways to imitate their strength and resilience. to be able to have the similar life lesson they had and to be able to help contribute to the rich legacy of the party if they have as well. okay, alright, i'm going to sum this up. we have some of the greatest resources there are elders within the party to learn from and be thankful to those who've come before us, i'm reminded of a political act this. right aldermen noted for elders. i feel very lucky to have grown up having interaction with adults who are making change but who were far from perfect beans. the feeling of not being paralyzed by a credible inadequacy as a human bean, which i feel day-to-day is part of the legacy of cotton for so many outfielders. elder may not be the best way to describe them. i'm reminded of what author elisabeth ross perot when speaking of the older generation.

the most beautiful people we have no privacy with no defeat, no suffering, no struggle, no loss in that found their way out of the depths. these persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity and understanding of life that fills them with compassion and gentleness and loving concern. beautiful people do not just happen and she's right. beautiful people don't just happen. they are creative in boston and the complexity of life and struggle. that is to our elders are, truly beautiful people who we are so grateful to have still fighting that our side and being able to learn from eric's aaron and lessons. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> hi, everybody, jarvis tyner,

executive vice chair of the party. [cheers and applause] i hope you are feeling that's uplifted as i am right now. you all agree. let me tell you. ict is good afternoon and i say to you we are going to have a great convention here. [applause] but i have a very specific task this evening. i want to talk to you about extending a welcome to our international desk. coming from the most powerful imperialist nation in the world, our party has a long and courageous record of anti-imperialist solidarity. workers of the world and press people of the world unite has become more than a great slogan for our party for 95 years.

we have fought this fight all through those 95 years with all that we have two translate those powerful words into powerful the ends of struggle. the founders of our party lifted the banner of internationalism and solidarity with the first socialist nation in land of lenin. we carried it in defense of public stand against the fascist berlin, tokyo, berlin, tokyo, rome, thank you, axis. the banner protested battista and it embraced cuban socialism. today it reads in the embargo and free the cuban fire. [applause]

our banner was lifted and solidarity with the courageous people of vietnam in their valiant struggle against u.s. imperialism. [applause] and we are with the people of vietnam today and i'm hopeful that a peaceful solution will be found to and the current, most serious conflict with the people's republic of china going on right now. our banner of anti-racism and nationalism is three times while a dirty with fight for freedom. [applause] and when we held the founding of the new antiracist democratic republic of south africa, we continue to raise the banner and solidarity with the new pro-socialist venezuela and all the new elected progressive

governments in latin america. [applause] we stood with the people of iraq in the u.s. invasion and occupation of their country admin their continued last piece and determination, the banner of the cp u.s.a. forever will weigh vacant imperialism and solidarity with the oppressed and exploited in the world. [applause] it is against austerity, which is being spread by the most powerful economic forces around the world. people fight back all over the world. we stand with the people who ran against the threat of war coming mainly from ultra- right, but not only from the ultra right, also from the israeli ruling.

we hold higher banner of anti-imperialism and stand with the people of central and south america and a struggle for social justice and for economic and political independence. independence from u.s. corporate dominated, workers and oppressed people of the world unite. [applause] in the ukraine, u.s. policy is joined with those who wave the flag ofism, including two sam's surprise the confederate flag was waved in kiev. those who carried the flag of u.s. slavery are supposed to be our allies in the ukraine? subfloor. [applause] the world has not forgotten what

naziism is. it does not represent the interest of the american people. it is not a bigger piece of the surge they can dominate and exploit. it is the wasted treasure of our nation squandered on war that we cannot afford. as the blood of our working and middle-class young and women, many of whom were coerced, bullied and deceived into military service behalf of u.s. corporate imperialist interests come in the same interest that exporting our jobs in the first place. [applause] so we have to die for their profits after they took our jobs. that, comrades, that problem is the greatest danger to our

nation. pieces beecher got it there for. that is why our party banner solidarity must never be lowered until peace and justice prevailed for all people. the fight for pieces where u.s. people holds basic interests lie. it is where we as a people make our greatest contribution to the future of humanity. we are in chicago in reno, comrades, it was the international solidarity with the haymarket martyrs that establish mayday is a worldwide workers holiday and help when the eight hour day. internationalism save scott burrough, and shall herndon and many face to the gallows. the whole fight to bring down that the still system of slavery in janco keyed masi because of

international solidarity. it was a wealthy english woman appellation as we put up the money that purchased the freedom of frederick douglass who is a fugitive slave to them. during the civil war, the great car mart landed in refused to unload ships made from slave labor. antiracism, antiracist solidarity is basic to working-class solidarity. [applause] our party -- it's been a long time. our party will never forget what communists and worker parties around the world did in the

fight to save angela davis. [applause] long-lived international solidarity. workers and oppressed people of the world unite. our unity is our strength. comrade, many parties have sent wonderful greetings to our convention who are especially delighted to have read many international guests who have joined us, many traveling thousands of miles to be with us. a number of other parties as john mentioned were blocked by the state department and the cubans sent in their application. they didn't say no. they just hit the visé. nothing cannot have it and they say they often do that. what are they so scared of? i thought we were irrelevant. what are they scared of? [applause]

our secretary of state, you know, come on. what is your problem, brother? you understand what i'm saying? i think it is part of fair -- whatever, i don't know what is. but anyway, they always calm, but there is a problem of health and he could not make the trade. they send their best wishes. we say to those who are here however, welcome, comrades. we are honored by your presence. i want to ask each one of you to stand as they call your party's name. comrades, please try to hold your applause until i wonderful international comrades are all standing. fat chance i know. first of all, from the communist party of brazil, please stand.

[applause] remained standing because i want everybody to stand. the communist party of britain, please stand. that's all the applause you all can do? come on. [inaudible conversations] i know, i am teasing. delanco party of germany, please stand. [cheers and applause] the two-day party ever ran. [applause] the communist party of iraq is here. [applause] the communist party of japan is here. [applause] and the communist party of vietnam. [cheers and applause] welcome.

please give them a rousing hand. [cheers and applause] you'll get a chance in the course of this weekend to meet payments on, but long live international solidarity. sorry i got emotional. thank you. >> juan lopez, the organizer of the northern california district. [applause]

>> thank you. well, it is a great privilege and pleasure to introduce our national chairman, sam webb. [applause] sam has been a mentor and inspiration to many of us, including myself. i am proud to say that sam and i at the ripe age of 69 share a common destiny. we are one year from entering the prime of our lives. [laughter] [applause] as young men, our baby boomer generation was shaped by the movements of any fixed the civil rights and anti-vietnam war area to which the party just emerging from