>> next on booktv "after words" with guest host theresa payton former white house chief information officer. this week cheryl chumley and her first book "police state usa" how orwell's nightmare is becoming our reality. in at the "washington times" reporter argues the government's desire to monitor and control

the public is greater now than ever before. traffic light cameras, drawn monitoring and more amounts to a police state that must be rolled back. this program is about an hour. >> host: cheryl, it's a pleasure to be here with you today and i really enjoyed reading your book "police state usa." i am a data junkie by nature and i just love the opportunity to talk with people about how to protect their data. we have got so many modern-day privacy issues that are coming up and what i love about what you do with the book, it's so well researched and so thoughtful and so provoking and i'm really excited to talk with you today and have a conversation about what do people need to know and is there actually anything we can do about it? i think you gave me a little bit of hope here in the book. one of the things that i thought

was really interesting with the nsa revelations and i wrote a little bit about that in my book privacy in the age of big data, was how consumers didn't realize businesses collect a lot of data back then so their cooperation by bucolic cooperation or coercion i'm not sure what the nsa. was that what sort of compelled you to write the book or were there other driving forces that you thought i have just got to write this book. i've got to inform people. tell me a little bit about that. >> guest: first off thank you so much for having me today. it's a pleasure to speak with you and i'm glad to hear that you enjoy the book. to answer your question was really other factors that drove me. i have been in recording -- reporting for a good 15 years and like most reporters i started on the local level. covering the local level of government you really get hands-on experience on how policies and regulations impact the average american.

i remember years ago covering county government and watching people who had purchased properties with the hopes of building their dream homes on it, coming to the local permitting and zoning offices and request the right to build their house on their properties. a certain county that i covered it was almost like it was environmentalist ground zero battleground. it was so driven by environmental regulation and policy. they didn't want to build anything and i recall vividly of his family came in with hopes to build on a 500,000-dollar parcel of property they had purchased and the local zoning people denied them repeatedly to the point that they had no repeals left. and i remember meeting the woman in particular in tears because now what is she going to do with that property? i was always tuned into issues like that. american and constitution is a

big deal. i read it just for fun sometimes and so i was always kind of laser den on issues like that. covering the local government issues is what really drove me. that in having four children and i worry about the fate of america and the future we are leaving them. >> host: you bring up the children and you are absolutely right. it's almost as if with what the founding fathers five so hard for through? and choices as some choices we don't even know we are making in those freedoms. what i love that you have done in the book is quoted the founding fathers before each chapter and when you read the quote it really does relate to the chapter. so it shows that the principles of the founding fathers the constitution and what this country was founded on even though the technology may change the principle stay the same. tesco is kind of like the bible. if you are a christian --

christian or a believer the basic principles don't change. it's not a living breathing document as al gore would intend it as he states and a lot of politicians nowadays regarded. there are certain core principles and to me the biggest founding father gift was the notion that our rights come from god and not government. if you think about that, it's a very powerful principle and one that i fear is slipping a way leading to the police states ideal state that we have right now. my biggest concern is recapturing that because once you were shirt -- recaptured you set the nation on the path of the founding fathers intended. >> host: in the book one of the things that was interesting as you talk about the places where you may not even know you are being tracked. for example mannequins. my co-author and i talked about the same mannequins you mentioned in your book and one

of the things people might not realize when you drive up to the shopping mall and if there is surveillance going on your license plate may be photographed. then you walk into a department store. your phone is talking to the wi-fi in the department store. bingo, now the store knows you are there and the next piece is the mannequins are actually watching you and trying to decide female or male gender. they may even try to decide ethnicity all to store the database against a service better. but then you added that there is new technology coming out and this is why i'm sure people say are you kidding me class they are going to be adding listening features to these mannequins. talk to us about some of the risks and concerns and what was on how moment for you when you saw this was going on for the local department stores in europe and america. >> guest: the ah-ha ah-ha moment is when it crosses the

line from stores posting notices and cameras being displayed in prominent places so shoppers are aware that they are being recorded to the point where you have no idea if the shopper your movements and conversations are being recorded and for what reason you don't know. some of the technology that they have in place now as you pointed out with the mannequins have moved from cameras in the eyes to recording devices planted in the heads of the mannequins and the cited reason for that is because the stores want to know shoppers discussions to hear what they say about some of the products that they display in their stores. that way they can gauge what are the best sellers, what things need to be moved off the shelves to make room for something else. the problem with this of course is most shoppers don't know when you walk into a story it's not like the signs say this dummy is recording you. you don't know that and that's a little bit creepy i think.

it's something in a science-fiction movie. it's interesting that when it's happening in real life it's a little bit alarming. >> host: it is and it's one of those things i don't remember walking into a store and hand -- having them handmade disclosure statement saying by the way you are not only being photographed for security reasons but i want to know what you are looking at and second of all i'm going to snoop in on your private conversations. i think that's one thing people needed to be really aware of. what's interesting too is i think sometimes you are profiting in this thirst for date of this insatiable appetite for data which helps them know their custom of the dash customer better and their customer loyalty to stock things in the store i want and also to drive revenue. i think at what price. we know all technology is hackable. we have seen the best and

brightest get hacked into and that data in the wrong hands could be potentially dangerous. i think as we learned when it comes to comment the private sector has the data then law enforcement may want to request access to that data as well. could you see things kind of progressing that way whether his recorded conversations or photographs while people are shopping. >> guest: that is the big fear. first and foremost in the private field when you are a shopper, you should at the least be given a heads up to what information is being collected on you. most people know about their zip codes and so forth but cameras that are hidden. they also have new technology that pings on your iphone. if you are a repeat shopper, if you are a big spender at things so it alerts the store clerks that hey there were big spenders here. let's swarm on him or her and get him or her to buy more. it's things like that but

shoppers may push a the convenience but not knowing you are not given the choice whether to participate in that or not. the other side of the equation is you have to think when stores are collecting data there's a database somewhere that's being kept. it's not just data floating around there. there's actually some sort of database where your information is sitting and if law enforcement or government surveillance intel and so forth ever cite the justification to tap into that data you have to be aware is an american you don't have any control on that data being handed over. >> host: exactly, so i like to think we are still innocent until proven guilty especially if we are minding her own business. let's stay on that topic of facial recognition because you mention in the book, you talk a little bit about how law enforcement is using facial recognition and how a lot of

states, not just a few, a lot of states at the dmv there's a boat is going on while you are doing your license renewal. they are asking you in some cases not to smile and the reason being is your photograph now has a dual purpose. it's not just about your driver's license anymore. >> guest: all this data is being fed in some instances and tuesday data centers and oftentimes maybe people know them better as fusion centers but a lot of it is data being collected for counterterrorism reasons. because counterterrorism intel at these data centers isn't generally what people expect them to be is also being used for law enforcement to go fight crime. when you are at your dmv and you are not smiling into the camera because they tell you not do you need to be aware that this is yet another form of data collection and you should be concerned or it at least curious where it's going to end up.

>> host: we also need to think about the choices we make so the dmv we don't have a choice. you need to get your license. you need to go to your state governor and say you don't like your state dmv practice perhaps. you don't have a choice but you do have a choice on the types of pictures that are put out on the internet on social media. that's one of those important things that i think consumers need to realize that you can take a little bit of your privacy back. maybe dmv you have to go to used a process to make sure your voice is heard but where you post photos of yourself and what you choose to post and going with those photos and what is accompanying you in the photos can be just as important as well. that's something you oftentimes can control. let's go into the banks. we talked to little bit about how there's some technologies now where as consumers we don't remember being given a

disclosure saying here is how i'm going to use your data, thank you very much. we don't even know the listening or photographing is going on. what i liked about what you talked about what the banks is the struggle you have in the modern age. i remember when i first started thinking i could not believe that we couldn't call on our own customers. i was on the technology side doing the platform for marketing and they said the first thing we have to do is we have to see which of our customers opted in for marketing. i said from us or from somebody else? they said from us. we are not allowed to market to earn customers unless they often and we have to provide disclosure statements of the banks of vice head care that if i collect data about you i had to disclose what i'm going to do with it and i also have to protect it. i know that and i have this duty of care. what's inch thing is think a lot of people don't realize how much the banks are told to cough up your data and it's not

necessarily in this disclosure statement. so now if you make a deposit over $10,000 because of the anti-money laundering and potential suspicious transactions the bank has to report you now matter how innocent and how great a customer you are. they must report their transaction. they also have to report when you were signing up for credit, they have to ask more questions than they would normally ask because they truly know you. they have to actually prove to bureaus within the government that they truly did their customer due diligence on you. talk a little bit about some of your findings where you were doing research on the banks and some of the things the banks are being told they have to collect about you and literally turn around and handed over to other departments and agencies. >> guest: well, you rightly described exactly what's going on with the banks. they are kind of being put in a crunch. on one hand the federal government is bearing down on

banks for counterterrorism reasons and so forth. you must collect information on your customers. you must know them but on the other hand the federal government isn't really getting isn't really giving banks a checklist of questions to ask. and if banks don't ask the proper questions and something into being the customer is doing is illegal the banks could actually be fined for that. the banks are kind of in a tight spot right now. as a customer going into a bank i remember back when i first started banking, banks used to draw you into giving you for a free toaster or sign-up and you get something free. all that friendly neighborhood banking relationship is gone. now when you go and banks want to know more than just your name, social security number, date of birth and so forth. they want to know sometimes where you work, where you do business, where your business that you work it does business and that the business you work

at does business in an overseas location they may pry into that. the reason is they are trying to do their due diligence to keep the feds off their backs basically. what is happening as the average american is feeling like they are suspected of a crime when all they are trying to do is open up a bank account. >> host: you are right, as you start going to the laundry list of what they have to ask you almost think are you trying to marry me or just helping or or just helping me open account to deposit my money? this is kind of the third degree you are putting me through here. you are a mom and i am a mom. you talk about this in the book. i talked about in my book how parents really need to understand when you put your children in the care of others what may be going on in the name of security or in the name of tracking for your kids. as it relates to the schools, you are looking at things like

we are going to record all of their grades on line. we just saw a young man to his friends, some of them paid him to change their grades and he went in there and changed his own. he has been busted for it. he got caught and got busted that we can see sort of the dangers with that. somebody might say gosh that's really kind of high school hijinks. he should not have done that and he was wrong. he will pay the price but no harm no foul. okay but then there's the enter the other piece about the data being collect of our children in the name of security. one of the things you write in the book is the irs scanning solutions being used in schools now and in some regards is touted as this is a great way to make sure your child gets on the right bus and to notify you if your kid gets on the wrong bus. what happens to a volunteer standing there saying good morning susie, good morning

joanie. just because technology can do it doesn't mean you should. you talk about the iris scanning that's going on. talk about when you were researching this. what were some of the privacy concerns that you felt like -- people don't really know about this and they need to know. what were some of the things you thought i have to cover this in the book lacks. >> guest: the biggest issue for me was not telling the parents. the issue that you are referring to happen in florida. this was just in 2013 i believe. there was a bus that implemented an iris scanning program. the parents did not know about it so when the child would board the bus they were told to stare into the iris scanning machine until the light turns blue. what was supposed to have happened was that data, he is into information school had on

the parents residence in their home address and it sends an alert that your child is on the bus on their way home. unfortunately, that school ended up being, the parents ended up being outraged about the school did because the person who was supposed to send a notification home to let them know that your child is going to be iris scanned, the person was sick the day the letter was supposed to go out. so all these kids were scanned on the bus. these are little kids. it was like the first, second and third grade. >> host: they are taught to respect authority. >> guest: that's right so they don't know they don't now and the parents were outraged and rightly so. the school stopped doing that program but what shocked me was the fact that this could go on. any school would think first out that this is technology that's necessary and second technology where parents don't need to give

input and be given the opportunity to say yea or nay to it before it's implemented. also what shocked me was finding out that stuff like this is going on with fair regularity around america right now. it's not so much few and far in-between cases as they are emerging technology and it's becoming a lot more abundant in our schools. >> host: do you feel like sometimes the hard part is the argument is this is in the name of security or convenience. that was also something else you mentioned, whether it's paying for school lunches or again getting kids on the right bus versus the wrong bus which i survived getting on and off buses. i don't know about you, without scanning my iris or turning over my dna to anybody. i see the danger of people saying it's about security. parents are busy. let's say the notification went out and some of these other

schools or using it and maybe people think oh wow that's great my school is implementing the latest and greatest technology to protect my children and they are just not thinking about if all technology is hackable and this company who i don't know, it's not my school, it's an outsource, has my child i scanned. if somebody steals my child i scanned my kids can't get a new eye. they can get a new iris scan. now they can go masquerading as my child whether it's for health care, whether it's trying to get into buildings once my children get older. whatever the iris scanned has someone may have the codes and the technology to literally make out an iris scanner. i think that's also part of the danger too as people are thinking about there's the privacy aspect on the front and of we need to have full disclosure but on the backend if

someone steals the data and it's your biometric unique data about you how are you going to recover? >> guest: is worse than someone stealing your credit card information. what are you going to do in to do and you touched on a very good point when you bring up it's for the security. another great argument is it's for the children so you can always meet the worst-case argument to justify any action on the part of the government. with technology and iris scanning biometrics and things like that oftentimes it's that worst-case scenario that's being cited as justification for everybody having to participate in this new technology. as a parent that's something you need to be aware of that your local school could be looking at this technology as a way of securing their child. >> you would never think it's apparent he would have to save your children i want you to respect authority unless they ask you to give up your

biometric data, then please call me or text me so i get your message. speaking of that whole thing with disclosures and eyes and kids, when you think about kids and you think about talking to them about the different aspects of life and talking about the birds and the bees talk. now somebody mentions the birds and the bees they might actually be talking about drones. we talk about the hummingbird model of the drone and there's also the du that flies around like a drone. a lot of times when they hear the word drunk people think those are official military use our law enforcement protection use devices and they don't realize they are literally as small and blending into nature as a b -- bee or a bird and some of the challenges with anybody can have it drawn. you write about an elected official there literally looked

out of her window and came face-to-face with the drone. talk a little bit about her experience with that and maybe that was a good wake-up call for a lot of us. >> guest: it's funny because issues like drones and privacy across political parties. republicans and democrats oftentimes have the same concerns. in this particular instance it was senator dianne feinstein. she was in her home i think it was and she looked out the window and there was a drone outside of her window. she took that experience to congress and warned her congressional colleagues to go slow on drone technology. as far as drone technology goes though i think that horse is basically out of the barn and i think at this point there's not really what people can do to slow it is for us the private sector goes. the congress has asked the fcc to come up with policies for commercial use of drones by

2015. amazon has very indicated that it wants to use drones to make product delivery. i think there's a pizza chain that was thinking of using drones to deliver pizzas and i think what's going to happen is people are going to look at th that, drones coming in delivering amazon products. kind of a cool thing and they are going to use that and they are going to be, you know it's kind of cool idea science fiction comes alive but when law enforcement steps in and wants to use the same drones to conduct surveillance operations at think that's what people are going to be a little bit more alarmed. >> host: you talk a little bit about too where we have cases where we have actually arrested citizens using drones and i mentioned some of the drone challenges in the book that i did and what was interesting when i was doing the research bears this cottage industry that is cropping up of anti-drone

goodies and anti-drone glasses. you mention in the book sometimes just a simple smile can help for facial recognition and drone technology. wearing the heady when a drone is targeted on you for some type of conflict isn't probably going to do it. talk a little bit about some of the conflicts that we have and again in the name of security. there was a gentleman who basically kidnapped the boy off of a bus and they used drone technology to safely rescued out boy. as a parent by heart goes out to that parent and i say while that sounds like the correct and reasonable use of technology. then you talk about another case where cows started eating another farmer seed grain of that stuff is expensive and cow's eat a lot and his family ended up in a standoff with the

police. drones got involved and basically the police were able to get the cows and arrest the family. talk a little bit about these two very different scenarios, one rescuing a life and one borrowing a drone to get involved in the situation. what are some of the slippery slope danger points here for us from a privacy perspective? >> guest: it is a slippery slope. it is a good way to phrase it. on one hand using drones for overseas conflicts, that brings with it a host of questions about the moral ethics of waging war that way but drones on american soil, that's something when you use them for criminal reasons as you point out a boy kidnapped off of a bus and held in a bunker for several days, people can relax on that and they understand good, let's get

this guy. they're also drones drones used to root out christopher dorner i believe was his name and that was just in the last year. some police of the feasibility. some american citizens saw the justification for that but when you use drones for environmental reasons as the epa has indicated that it might want to do to scour the fields to make sure people's farmlands and crops and so forth aren't violating environmental laws, that might be where people would like to draw the line. when you use drones for surveillance technology they don't need to obtain a warrant. they just send drones into the sky and collect data from a camera. >> host: so wait a minute, they have to have a warrant to search my house and you are saying if they want to search over my house and over my yard they can get a drone without a warrant? >> guest: police don't have the right right now to use

drones for surveillance technology for the most part. they want to use a drone to conduct the surveillance operation they could use one of custom and border patrol. they can ask permission from custom and border patrols to conduct the surveillance operation but in the years to calm as drones become more commonplace and americans become more accepting of drone used if police departments are able to use drones one of the slippery slope questions to ask is one that drone is flying above properties may be looking for certain suspect that recording data all the same if sweeping up all types of data that is not pertinent perhaps to that suspect. so you could be standing nearby. you could be walking down the street and your images are being captured on the video in the drone. that's certainly something that most americans may not think of when they get the thumbs-up to using drones to fight criminals. on the other hand you have to

think where is my data going? law enforcement is going to have that data. >> host: you bring up something really interesting because didn't you just get on google's case when google street view was taking pictures and they picked up our home wi-fi networks in the device is connected to its? everyone said wait a minute come you shouldn't be doing that. i don't care what greater good you think up a long stupid you have crossed the line. we said that to a private sector company. i would think we would say the same thing to law enforcement or even i have seen where they have said some counties have used drone technology combined with google street view to see if people have put pools and without asking for permits. trying to find people so to your point where do we draw that line

and that brings up an interesting point. a lot of times when we look at whether it's a presidential election, when we are looking at elected officials in washington or at home, oftentimes we talk about ego than national or local economy. we talk about national security and they talk about local issues at the local election. do you think the third thing on the list might start you need to be around? how are you going to protect its citizens right to privacy in the digital age? >> i definitely think that should be a question that candidates for office should be asked and they should be prepared to answer. this is a moving target and since even my book came out there has been a lot more instances that had they occurred at the time of my research i would have included them in this book. the advance of data and emerging technology is something that's really hard to put that genie back in the bottle once it's out there so you need to plan ahead.

you need to have in place policies and revelations guiding how some of these technologies should be used. they should always start with getting the public aware of how that technology is going to be used. police departments should have drones in their closet that they can take out whenever they want, whenever there's a crime to be committed. they should have policies and guidelines. what types of crimes are they able to use drones for, what policies do they have to pursue to be able to launch the drones in the air and what happens to the date after its collective? there should be oversight on how police use that data after and what they do with it. if it's going to be destroyed there should be a watchdog to make sure it is destroyed. you are right some of these need to have in their minds how are they going to treat data going forward? postcodes interesting when you think about at it facebook, twitter, instagram and the

mannequins at the mall, all of the things that you and i are talking about, most of those technologies are in the last 10 years and the last time our country pass significant privacy or cybersecurity legislation was 12 years ago. so all of the things you talked about, they weren't really in the consumer eye or the public eye being used on a massive scale. now they are. what do you think are the implications for law's? obviously it takes us a long time and we should be careful when we create new laws. we should be very careful and deliberate when we do that. you almost wonder will they lobby outdated by the time you pass it? so how do we think about laws in this new digital age? the laws need to be dynamic and fluid and give us enough guidance the people don't step

out of bounds and we have to rate balance on individual rights and privacy's. just go right, that's going to be a hard challenge to solve because when you talk about data collection surveillance type technologies right off it raises the red flag of privacies and civil rights and those two things rarely had down the same path. the biggest concern people should be aware of than the one where a citizenship of their focus and developing some real regulations and principles to go by is in law enforcement. law enforcement have at their disposal technology where they can ride vehicle down the street in. two other vehicles and peer beneath peoples clothing to see what they are carrying on them. all that can be done without a warrant. police have at their disposal technology that's emerging right now that helps them predict crimes before they occur.

not only predict them for the police to get a red flag or a heads up but the police can actually respond to those areas of suspected crimes before a crime even occurs. that is straight out of big brother george orwell type writings and so forth. i think when people think of data they need to think first and foremost what is the state of being used for? can i be given a heads up without compromising the security of the nation and if so, then people need to be in control of how that data is allowed to be used, specifically in and most alarmingly with the police departments. >> host: you definitely have hit on some really great areas write down for law enforcement and it's tough because they have got loved ones saying i need you to work this case. you have elected officials sometimes saying this can never happen again. something as horrible as the

boston marathon bombing and people say how did you miss the clues and don't ever let anything like this happen again. you see the next boston marathon and you see the surveillance is completely different. i think we all agree we don't like tragedies like that. but you mention in the book that sometimes it's those events, it's those tragic events where in our moment people want action. sometimes they don't realize when they ask for quick action that they may be actually trading off a little bit of their privacy. talk a little bit about what you discovered when you are looking at research and was interesting how you found the timing of when things have been allowed to occur in people say of course that's okay because the timing was following the tragedy. >> guest: specifically the boston marathon. i include that in my book because history will tell you and people commit their up their own minds whether law enforcement is justified in

practically locking down the city and some of the actions that they did to root out the two terrace you know in that egregious action. what i wanted to make clear is if enough fear is generated among people it opens the doors to what you just said. all types of civil rights infractions and that the boston marathon bombing what you saw was the scene completely locked down. you saw one person going into peoples homes without warrants, pulling people out at gunpoint. videos on youtube are posted at this. there were different stories told in the weeks and months to follow how people's civil rights and privacies were deliberately trouncing of assault in the name of rooting out these terror suspects. you can -- these types of things really can happen in america. i remember specifically one story of an elderly woman who was in her home and her phone

rang and she answered it and she was told by the voice on the other intangible door. when she opened the door she looked out and there were scores of armed police officers holding weapons at her both on her doorstep and across the street. what happened and we didn't learn about this until weeks later, but somebody had called and said that terror suspects in her home. the police responded. they grabbed her and they put her and attention ultimately in a psychiatric unit for behavioral profiling and so forth. she finally got out and there was no crime or anything like that but it's just something that people need to be aware of. when there is fear generated oftentimes your security is the first thing you reach for and your civil rights he could care less about. >> host: in a particular case too there was crowdsourcing going on. this is where data could be

helpful so people are combing through information and looking at surveillance and they're also looking at misinformation and they forget there's a reason why you have media. the media will be a trusted and that its source. they may not move at the pace that independent people posting things on the internet do, however they typically do not release date and intel is fed. during all of that there was a young man who was wrongly accused and literally it took him a long time to recover from being wrongly accused. he may have that haunt him. i always feel on your hard drive you can't personally get it back but somebody has the summer. in that particular case the data used the wrong way to draw the wrong conclusions can be very dangerous. obviously there's the issue for

the elderly woman awful. and then a young man who is unjustly accused by the public for crowdsourcing is a scary thought. >> guest: is something that americans need to be aware of. these things can happen and when it happens to somebody else it's gets a little closer to home. when it happens to you all of a sudden you get it and all of a sudden you are fighting for privacies and civil rights. >> host: you have done so much research on this book. i'm sure when you saw the headline about the right to be forgotten basically to focus first on google but i don't think it's going to and they are, were you surprised to see the e.u. come down on that right to be forgotten and they are going to be enforcing it. were you surprised to see that happen and do you think the u.s. will follow course or do you think we will watch and see what

happens? >> guest: now, i wasn't surprised by the e.u.'s actions. i don't think america will follow suit. i don't think we are going to have any policies put in place a clampdown on intel or intelligence agencies together security information. i think there may be some lipservice paid to politically correct, basically calm the american public to say we are not going to look at information on you without a warrant or we are not going to do another nsa repeat where we are sifting through innocent americans information. i don't think americans will. >> host: so your prediction is don't hold your breath for the right to be forgotten in the u.s.. >> guest: exactly, yes. >> host: when it comes to looking at the data and the data collection is going on you to mention the book and you just

mentioned it here, the fact that while you are looking for the bad guy but a lot of innocent bystanders naturally get pulled in whether it's pictures of the location, surveillance video of a location, whether it's a drone footage, photos of every single person who gets a license at the dmv, all of that going into a database you have done nothing wrong. what are some of your concerns after doing this research and maybe sort of looking ahead with the fact that all of us minding our own business that our information whether it's our photo, whether it's our like us on facebook, whether it's our searches on google or whether it's our picture of the dmv, all of that data having the opportunity aggregated and used, what are some of your privacy concerns as you look ahead to

the future? >> guest: of the biggest thing is at turns average american citizens into being suspect by all local government. our society is not based on that. we have the principle innocent until proven guilty and is kind of a creepy feeling if you're not doing anything wrong. at the same time the government is regarding as a possible suspect. my real problem in this data collection is on one hand we are collecting all kinds of data across all levels of government come in business, in the private sector and the government sectors but at the same time we are not really doing anything common sense to protect the security of america and to do those counterterrorism type initiatives that would be so simple to take. for instance at the same time we are collecting data on innocent americans we are letting our borders remain porous. if i were a terrorist threat now than ideal place for me to be but be coming up through our

southern border because it's porous right now and i think that's something our government should crack down on. so a lot of the common sense type security measures that the government could take are being overlooked but at the same time a lot of the ones that seem to put innocent americans in the targets, those are being pounced on. >> host: you bring up a really great point. if you have the opportunity to build out a privacy law and there were three simple things in it, not a 1200 page law but sort of a, maybe three or four things in a privacy law, what would your recommendation be that we look for an outlaw? >> guest: my recommendation would be first and foremost if say counterterrorism measure, has to state clearly what the goal of that counter term issue

is. way too many times data has been collected in the name of counterterrorism and then ends up being used for criminal aspects. second off, i think giving americans the right to know should come first and foremost in data collection if at all possible. if it's not something that's going to put the security of our nation at risk than americans need to be aware of it and specifically in your stores with the dummies. that's something easy. your iphone, that's something easy. some of these data collections are really easy to give privacy notification to americans that they are not being done. iris scanning on your students, any type of data collection and schools, parents should not only be notified that they should be given the right to opt in or opt out and they should be given a voice in the decision-making process. those are just a couple of things i would say. >> host: those are great tenants. i love the idea that if you are

under 18 you are asking for my permission to administer aspirin when my child has a headache. i would think i would need your permission to take your iris scan or whatever other biometrics you are asking for and unless you are an official source that i i trust what that did i'm going to tell you now, thank you very much. when it comes to the research that you are doing, what is one of the cases that you came across that you thought this absolutely cannot be true? this cannot be happening so you just kept digging into it and digging into it and thought this really is happening. this case is really happening. what was the craziest case you uncovered when you were doing this research? >> guest: there are a lot of stories that could fit into that but the one that jumps into my mind right now shows the utmost elitism of government when it comes to doing things on the name of security and not feeling the need to let people know.

there was a city council decision out in scottsdale, arizona and what it was, they wanted to build a new building for their law enforcement. what they did was, they didn't have a public hearing on it. they just voted to spend that the think it was $1.3 million of taxpayer dollars to construct this building. the thing was they didn't want to tell citizens were the building was going to be built and when i called and asked them what's going on, is this true because i saw other stories about at first, the justification was was this as a law enforcement building. we don't want to give a heads up to where our undercover officers may walk in and out of so people may come see them. it was ridiculous because the square footage of the building, it was a small town, dictated common sense showed exactly where the building was going to be. on the flipside of that if you look in washington d.c. it's not like they hide that intel

buildings. people come and go all the time and you can see who walks in and out of them. i just thought that was an egregious example of how a local government board could spend taxpayer dollars on the building citing security reasons and not even bother to tell the taxpayers where the building they are paying for is going to be constructive. >> host: were there any repercussions for that? >> guest: now. when i questioned them they dug down. >> host: you never know, maybe in the next election you may see a few changes. i agree with you. i've been to scottsdale and i thought i'm not sure where they would put this building. maybe underground, i'm not sure but that was really quite an interesting case. one of the things you do talk about though is you mention we are on sort of this dangerous course, this collision course slowly but surely. we justified for this reason or

that reason and that's why -- that's twice a day to collect this data but you say it's collectible. have you seen many situations where, so for example i know there was a department store here in the u.s. that when their customers found out they had this -- these creepy mannequins that were looking at them they probably would have really freaked out about the boys once. they complained to the department store corporate headquarters and they did a pilot and they removed those mannequins. there's an example where you can change the course if you let your voice be heard in a civil logical manner. so in reversing this course, you talk about your wish list for a privacy law and i think those were good tenants. what are some other things that you have seen work well to sort of reverse this course and continue the wake-up call going in for us to have the

opportunity to grab our privacy back? right. >> guest: right, there've been protests around the nation when local people learned that their police department was seeking drones to purchase and use for criminal reasons. so those are successful. i would say if people want to put a stop to some of this data collection that goes on for some of the militarization by police that goes on you and need to keep it at your local community level. capitol hill politicians are not going to stay any longer. your letters and phonecalls will be dismissed and pushed to the side but at the local level your local county governments and city councils control the pursestrings on your police departments. if you don't want your police department to have drones then you should go to your local board meetings and petition your local politicians to not pay for this type of technology. you can use that and very simply

go to the board meetings that are held every couple of weeks. at the local level your voice will be heard. i have seen stories where that was done and police gave up the notions of buying drones and some of us more militarized equipment. >> host: what advice would you have for corporations? we talked early on in your book that opens up around sort of the revelations of nsa but the poll data source is the nsa didn't put the mannequins in the stores and they didn't create microsoft. so they were basically partnering with the private sector. we know that the private sector, they need to make money. that's why they produce products and at the same time we want them to know is so they can service better but we want our privacy protected. the microsoft slogan in the talk

about it in your book that your privacy is important to us are protecting your privacy is of utmost important to us so what would your by. >> companies as far as their transparency to consumers and how they treat customer data especially going back to the principle of if you collected and we know all technology is marketable in other bad guys wanted. how might it be used by other companies or government organizations without cybercriminal -- and what about cybercriminals x. what would the message be to companies based on your research about the next step they need to take to regain customer trust and start rebuilding a transparency conversation around privacy? >> guest: right, slogans are good but i think most americans would prefer full disclosure and honesty. when you saw around

christmastime target shoppers all their credit card and debit card information was being swept up in stolen and hacked, it was slow going to get the information on exactly how many had been hacked. i believe the corporation was alerted to the hacking a couple of weeks before they let it out into the regular public. when you find things like that you lose trust in the store and it seems to me the stores that would give the most disclosure to what the data about bake collect is being used, those would be the stores that people would tend to flock to because they feel comfortable. they feel as if that store for that corporation is actually putting their privacy first before the competent dollar bottom line. >> host: that's a tough one especially if you are dealing with companies on line now. there is one when you are in the store but then there's the other when you are dealing with them on line and a lot of times that

privacy policy is in that 6.5 on your little screen and you can't go any further until you click okay. the same thing with social media services and i find more often than not customers will say i know i should and i almost feel guilty like telling there down as they floss twice a day. i know i should read the privacy policy but i don't is what a lot of people will say to me. i will say i understand that it really is so important and your conversation around how companies need to be more transparent about this. do you think the privacy policies are a great place to start and let's throw away baking a throw away taking throw away baking a sound like a legal contract instead be transparent. >> guest: simple language. i don't really have those myself. it's just so long it seems like and it seems like it's to protect the legal interests of

the company. really though if you are a shopper the only way that you are going to dodge data collection and kind of skate around all this emerging technology is if you are paying cash. if you are concerned about it you can kind of keep to a minimum viewer data transactions and so forth. you can take your money out of the bank and cash, what you need and then when you shop paying cash, it's things like that but if you are concerned about you can take a few steps on their own with or without the companies. >> host: you are right, there are simple test you can take and others you mentioned others you mention better if i could pick you mention cached and we talked about the whole thing about don't let your cell phone talk to wi-fi and there are some other things you uncovered in your research that you think are steps you can take. >> guest: america has turned toward the social media phase where everything you do in life is thrown up on facebook or

twitter. that is data that you are putting out there. nobody is asking you for it. you are voluntarily putting it out there so if you are concerned about data breaches and so forth and stop doing half of this social media stuff. there are a few steps that americans can take. you don't have to live in the woods as a hermit but you have to be aware is part of modern society. you are not going to get around all the data collection is going on. >> host: as you were doing their research and trying to different conclusions, the biggest take away you would want people to take away from your book, there were couple a couple of things that really resonated with me there were things they carried over from when i wrote my book on privacy. and it really struck me again you are tied back to the

founding fathers into the constitution, to our personal rights. what would be one or two things you would want somebody listening today or when they read your book what would you like them to take away from this conversation? >> guest: i want people to be aware that when you read this book these are all case studies drawn from recent media events. these aren't conspiracy type made up events where i'm alleging that we are in this police state track and it's just a creepy -- crazy tinfoil hat argument. these are things that you can flip on and look. newspaper and see happening every day. federal state and local government approaching all aspects of human activity. the biggest take away that would like people to remember is legislation was founded on the notion that our rights come from god, not government. if you think of that look around you and read my book and see how

far we have strayed from that. once that is gone where else can you go in the world and that this freak is where we are supposed to be living? >> host: that's a great take away. a great book. i enjoyed it. it was hard to put down. i read a few things a couple times through, lost little sleepover couple of things in here. he did a fabulous job. i highly recommend this for everybody, the consumer's business people, what did officials, anyone in the u.s. definitely needs to read this book. thank you so much. >> guest: thank you so much theresa.

kohl ..