second amendment is a bad idea. justice stevens wrote his first book where he proposed amending the constitution about rewriting the mma to make it look more like what he hoped and justice stevens to speak as much as he wants about that, raise all the money he can spend electing people who would agree with him on that point of view. but at the end of the day, he has to honor the fact that if you don't like it we can change it, but right now the second amendment we should be applying. >> i told you at the beginning that my goal is to bring the best nights of america on all sides of the constitutional state, the constitution center and let you do people make up your mind. it's an honor to hear the scholars. please join me in thanking michael waldman and alan gura.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> next, on booktv, "after words" with theresa payton, this week cheryl chumley and her first book, "police state u.s.a.: how orwell's nightmare is becoming our reality" in may, the "washington times" reporter argues that governments desire to to monitor and control the public is greater now than ever before. traffic light cameras, drove monitoring and more amounts to a police state that must be rolled back. this program is about an hour.

>> host: cheryl, and it's a pleasure to be here with you today and i've really enjoyed your book, step two. i am a data junkie by nature and i just love the opportunity to talk with people about how to protect their data. with so many modern-day privacy issues coming up in what i love about what you do with the book on it so was research, so thought of as though provoking. so i'm really excited to have a conversation about what do people need to know and if there actually anything we can do about it? he gave me a little help here in the book. you now, one of the things i thought was interesting with the nsa revelations. i wrote a little bit about that in my book, was how consumers didn't realize businesses

collected a lot of data back then and sort of their cooperation, whether you call a cooperation or coercion i am not sure with the nsa. were there other chirping sources he thought i've just got to write this book? i've got to influence people. tommy about that. >> guest: first of all, it is a pleasure to speak with you and i'm glad to hear you enjoyed the book. to answer your question, it was other factors that drove me. i've been supporting for a good 15 minutes and i started out on a local level and cover in the level of government, you really get a hands on experience and policies and regulation impact and i remember years ago covering government in watching people who had hopes of building their dream home come into the local zoning offices and

requests the right to build their homes and properties and a certain county i covered was almost like this environmentalist crowd zero battleground. it is so driven by environment to regulation of politics they didn't want to build anything. i recall vividly how this mak men would hope to build on the $500,000 parcel of property and the local zoning people tonight been repeatedly until the point they have no more appeals left. i remember them leaving, the woman in particular in tears because now what is she going to do with that property? i was always keyed into issues like that. i am an american and constitution is a big deal. i read it just for fun sometimes. so i was always kind of lasered and on issues like that. but covering the local

government issues is what really kills me. that and having four children and i worry about the fate of america and the future of sleepiness. >> host: you bring up children and you're absolutely right right. it's almost as if perplexing choices and some choices we don't even know we're making, we've given up those freedoms. what i'd love that you've done in the book as you quoted the founding fathers before each chapter. when you read the quotes, 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 that technology may change, principles stay the same. >> guest: right. it's kind of like the bible if you are a christian nor a believer, the bible, the basic principles don't change. the constitution is not a living breathing document as al gore would intend it and a lot of our

politicians nowadays regard it. they're certain core principles into name the biggest founding father gift given us with the notion that our rights come from god not government. if you think about that, it's a very powerful principle and one that i fear slipping away leading to the police state type u.s.a. we have now and my biggest concern is recapture it not because wants to recapture it, that you sent our nation back on the path the founding fathers intended. >> host: in the book, one of the things that is interesting as you talk about the places you may not even know you're being tracked. for example, manikins. my co-author and i talk about the same manikins in your book and one of the things people might not realize as you drive to the shopping mall and if their surveillance going on, your license plate they be

photographed. then you lock into this apartment where your phone is talking to the wi-fi to the wife at a department store, now the store knows you are there in the next piece is that manikins are actually watching you in trying to decide female, male, gender. they may even decide ethnicity, all too stored in a database i guess to serve us better. but then you added new technology has come out and this is uninsured people as they are you kidding me? you added that. they will be adding listening features to these manikins. talk about the risk and concern and the moment for you when you saw this was going on at the local department stores in europe and america. >> a moment really is when it crosses the line from stores posting notices and camas displayed in prominent places so shoppers are aware they are being recorded to the point you

have no idea of a shocker that your movements and conversations are recorded and for what you don't know. so some of the technology they have in place right now kamensky pointed out they have moved from cameras in the eye to recording devices planted in the heads of dominican and the reason for that is because the stores want to know shoppers discussions to hear what they say about the products they displayed in their stores in that way they can gauge what are the best sellers, what things need to be moved off the shelf to make room for something else. but more shoppers don't know when you lock in a store that say this dummy is recording you. you don't know that i'm not a little bit creepy. it's interesting, but when it's happening in the last comment a little bit alarming. >> it is. and i don't remember walking into the store and having a

disclosure statement saved by the way, you may not only be photographed, but i kind of want to know what your looking. and second of all, we're going to snooping on your personal, private conversations. so that was one thing people need to be really aware of. what is interesting, too if sometimes company and sort of have this worst for data, this insatiable appetite that helps another customer better, customer loyalty. it's supposed to be for good or maybe to save us money. bottom-line revenue. but i think we know that all technology is applicable. rescind the best and the brightest imac data and the wrong hands could be potentially dangerous if the private sector

has the data, them on for a snack may want to request access to the data as well. whether it's recorded conversations or photographs. >> host: that is the big fear. first and foremost when you're a shopper, when you go when come you should come you should at the very least be given a heads-up of what information is being collected on you. most people know about zip codes and so forth, the camas hidden our new type allergy on your iphone. if your repeat shopper, a big spender, it alerts the store clerks that this big spender is here. let's swarm hand on her and get her to buy more. if things like that the shoppers may appreciate the convenience, but not knowing. you're not given the choice of whether to participate or not. the other side of the equation is you have to think when stores

are collecting data, there is a database somewhere being kept. it's not just data floating around. there's actually a database for the information is sitting. if law enforcement or government surveillance, intel and so forth ever cites the justification to tap into that data can be have to be aware you don't have any control over the data been handed over. >> guest: exactly. like to think we are innocent until proven guilty. especially of reminding our business. let's stay on that topic of facial recognition because you mentioned in the book you talk a little bit about how the law enforcement at using spatial recognition. how a lot of states, not just a few, but a lot of states have a little added those nice where you're 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 drivers license anymore. the state data centers and maybe people know them and data is being collected for counterterrorism reasons. the intel at the data centers isn't generating what people expected them to. it's also used for law enforcement. when you are at the dnc and you're not smiling into the camera because they thought you not to khamenei to be aware that this is yet another form of data collection and you should be concerned for these curious whether this is going to end up. >> host: we need to think about where we need to be. you need to get your license. it converts your state governors

they don't like the state dmv practice. you don't have a choice. but you do have a choice to take pictures that are put out on the internet on social media and that's one of the import things consumers need to realize that you can take a little bit of your privacy back. maybe dmv has to go through the state process and make sure your voice is heard. but where you post photos of yourself, let us as a company named you on the scotus is just important as well. that is something you often times can control. >> host: let's go into the bank because we've talked about how various technology now whereas consumers, we don't remember being have been a disclosure saying here is how i'm going to use your data, thank you very much. we don't know the listing are photographing is going on. what i liked about what you talked about what the big sis

for the struggle they have in the modern age. i remember when i first started thinking, i could not believe that we couldn't call up our customers. i was on the technology side with a platform for marketing. they said the first thing we have to do this for a month or somebody else did at the terminus were not allowed to market our customers unless they provide disclosure statements. so the banks have always had this duty of care for if i collect data, i have to disclose what i'm going to do with it and i also have to protect it. i think a lot of people don't realize how much the banks are supposed to cough up your data and it's not necessarily the disclosure statement. if you make a deposit over $10,000, the anti-money laundering, the bank has to

report you no matter how innocent and how great a customer you are, they must report the truth action. they also have to report when you're signing up for credit. they ask a lot of questions then maybe they would normally ask because i know you because they have to actually prove to different bureaus within the government they truly did their customer due diligence on you. tell me about some of your finance for your doing research and some of the things the banks have been told that has to collect about you would literally turn around and handed over to other departments and agencies. the >> guest: you rightly describe this going on and they're kind of been put in a crunch. on one hand, the federal government is bearing down on banks and same for counterterrorism reasons and so forth you must collect information on your customers. you must know them.

on the other hand, the federal government isn't giving them a checklist of questions to ask anything still not the proper questions of the day and ends up to be illegal, the banks could actually be fined for that. so they are kind of in a tight spot right now. i remember back when i first started thinking that banks use to dry u.n. by giving you a free poster for sign-up and you get something free. all that friendly neighborhood taking. now if you want to know more than just the name, social security number, date of birth and so forth. they want to know sometimes where you work him over you do business, we business you work at ss and if the business you work at this business in an overseas location and may climb into that. they're trying to do their due diligence. what is happening is the average

american is feeling they are suspected of a crime when all they do is open a bank account. >> guest: as you go through the laundry list, you must think are trying to marry me or open up an account so i can deposit my money because it's kind of the third degree are putting me through here. i understand children. your mom. i am a mom. you talk about the sin of the yet i talked about it in my book around how parents really need to understand better the care of others of what may be going on in the name of security for great tracking for your kids. so i figure this to the school, looking at things like wheeler record all of their grades online. we just saw a young man who spreads, some of them paid them to change their grades and while he was in that they changed

around and he got caught and got busted, but we can see the dangers with that. someone might say that it's really just sort of high school hygiene. he shouldn't have done that. i pay the price. no harm, no foul. but then there's the other piece about the data collected about our children and one of the things you write about in the book is the solutions being used at the schools now at seven padded as this is a great way to make sure your child gets on the right bus and for us to notify you they got off the bus. i'm reading that, thinking what happened to the volunteers standing there saying good morning, susie. good morning, johna. you talk about when you're

researching this as a reporter, what were some of the privacy concerns that you thought like gosh, people don't really know about this and maybe to know. over some of the things that you thought i have to cover this in the book, and. >> guest: the biggest issue for me was not telling of the parents. the issue refers to as the bus that implemented an iris scanning probe room. parents did not know about it. so when a child with her at the bus, they would look into the iris scanning machine until the light turned blue. what was supposed to have been is the data sought information they had on the parents president in their home address nsn finale your child is on the bus, on their way home. unfortunately, that ended at the

outraged about what the school day because the person is supposed to send a notification home to let them know your child is going to be iris scan. all of these kids are scan on the bus. these are the kids. it was like first, second, third graders. they don't know when his parents found out about it and they were outraged and rightly so in the school stopped doing that program. but what struck me with the fact that this could go on, that anything would be technology that is necessary and second on, type knowledge he were parents don't need to give input to be given the opportunity to say georg may be for this implemented. also what shocked me was finding stuff like this is going on with fair regularity.

it's not so much few and far in between cases as they are emerging technology becoming a lot more abundant. >> host: do you feel sometimes the hard part is the argument is this is in the name of security or convenience. there was also something else mentioned whether it's paying for school lunches are again getting kids on the bypass versus the wrong bus. i provide getting on and off buses. i don't know about you. without scanning my iris are sending my dna to anybody. i see the danger that people say that the vast security are busy. maybe people think that's great. my schools implementing the latest and greatest technology to protect my children and they are just not really thinking about all technology is palpable

in this company who i don't know. it not my school. it's been also is, if somebody steals my parents eyes and come a day can't get a new iris scan. now they can go masquerading whether it's for health care, tried to get into buildings once my children get older. somebody else in a hot the code in the technology to literally take out an iris scanner. i think that is also part of the danger, too. people are thinking about the privacy aspect on the front end of to a full disclosure. but on the backend, someone steals this data and it's your biometric data about you. how you going to recover? >> guest: is worse than somebody stealing your credit card information.

what are you going to do quite you touched on a really good point when he brought up is for the security. another great argument is the children. you can always make a worst-case argument to justify about any action on part of the government. with technology and iris scanning, biometrics, things like that, oftentimes it is the worst-case scenario being cited as justification for the participating in this technology. as a parent, that something needs to be aware that your local school could be looking at this technology as a way of securing your child. postcode you never think of a parent you have to say dear children, i want you to respect authority unless they give up the biometric data. >> host: speaking of the whole thing with disclosures and eyes

and kids, we think about kid and talking to them about the different aspects of life and the birds and the bees. not somebody mentions the birds and bees, they might actually be talking about drones. there is also the view that flies around and the fact that a lot of times when we hear the word drone, people think those are official military views or law enforcement protection devices that they don't realize they are literally as small and blending into nature has to be your bird at this rate in some of the challenges with anybody can have a drone. you write about any luck it official who literally looked out her window and came face-to-face with the drone. talk a little bit about her experience with that and maybe does a good wake-up call for a lot of us. >> guest: it is funny because

issues like drugs and privacy with republicans and democrats oftentimes that 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 her window and she took that experience and want her congressional colleagues to go slow on drone technology. the first drone technology goes though, i think that horse is basically out of the barn and i think at this point there's not really a lot of people can do to slow it as far as the aeros. the congress has asked the fcc to come up with policies for commercial use of drugs by 2015 and they've indicated they want to use drones to make product delivery. i think what is going to have to

miss people are going to look at that, drums coming in, delivering amazon products is kind of the cool thing. they are going to use that and they are going to be coming in now, kind of a cool idea. but then when one person steps in and wants to use the same drones to conduct surveillance, and that three people are going to be a little bit more alarmed. >> host: you talk about cases where we've actually arrested citizens using drugs. unmentioned some of the challenges in the book that i did. always interesting when i was doing the research, there is this industry are popping up of anti-drone hoodies and anti-drone classes. you mentioned just a simple as technology. wearing a hoodie when a drone is

targeted on you for some type of conflict isn't going to do it. talk about the conflicts that we had. again in the name of security. there is a gentleman who kidnapped the boy off of a bus in the use drone type ologies to safely rescued the boy. as a parent, my heart goes out to left. then i say that sounds like and then you talk about another case where cows started eating another farmers feed grain cannot stuff is expensive and cows eat a lot and his family ended up in a standoff with the police. trump 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

good one, you are rescuing a life. when you are barring a drone to get involved in this situation and what are some of the slippery slope dangerous point here for a permit privacy perspective? >> guest: it is a slippery slope. that's 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 aspects. the drones on american soil is something that we used them for criminal reasons, as you point out, a boy could not on a bus and hot underground in a bunker for several days. people can relax on that engenders and good, let's get this guy. they're also drones used to root out a pulley shooter, christopher dorner i believe is his name analysis last year.

sound american citizens saw the justification for that. but when you use drones for environmental reasons as the epa's indicated that he might want to do to scour the fields to make sure that people's farmlands and crops and so forth might be where they would like to draw the line. when you use drones for surveillance type technology and major syndromes in the sky and collect data through a camera. >> host: you are saying over my house it over my yard they can get a drone without a warrant? >> guest: police don't have the rate not to use drones for surveillance technology for the most part. they want to use a drone to conduct a surveillance operation. they can is one of custom border

patrols and they can ask permission for custom and border patrols to conduct the surveillance operation. in the years to calm as drones become more commonplace in america has become more excepting, if police departments use drones, one of the questions to ask for both properties, may be looking for a certain suspect, but recording data all the same as sweeping up all types of data that is not pertinent perhaps. so you could be standing nearby. you could be walking down the street and your images are being captured on the video and that is certainly something that most americans may not take out when they get the arms of using drones to fight criminals. on the other hand, you have to think where is my data going? salon person will have that data. >> host: you bring up something really interesting.

didn't we just get on google's case when google street view was taking pictures and they picked up all of our home wi-fi network and device ideas connecting to it. everyone said that's not right. you should be doing now. i don't care what it is you're trying to do and what greater good that belongs to, that you've crossed the line. we said that to a private sector company. i think we would say the same thing to law enforcement. or a scene where they said some counties have used drum technologies with google street view to see if people put pools and without asking for permit. you say to your point, where do we draw that line? that brings up an interesting point. a lot of times when i look at the presidential election, whether elected or elected officials in washington for

elected officials at home, oftentimes we talk about it at the national or local economy. we talk about national security. we may talk about local issues of the local election. do you think the third thing on the list might be to be around how are you going to protect a citizen's right to privacy? >> guest: i definitely think that should be a question candidates should be asked and prepared to answer. you know, this is a moving target. since my book came out, there is a lot more instances that had they occurred at the time of my research, i would've included them in my book. the advance of data in the emerging technology of some name that is really hard to put that genie back in the bottle once it is out there. you need to plan ahead. you need to have in place policies and regulations guiding how some of the technologies should be used and it should always start with getting the

public aware of how that technology is going to be used. police departments should not drones in their closets that they can take out whenever they walk whenever there is a crime being committed. they should have actual policies and guidelines and what policies do they have to pursue it in order to launch the drones in the air and what happens to that data after it is collected and there should your site and how police use that data after and what they do with it if it is going to be destroyed there should be a watchdog to make sure it is destroyed. some of these candidates have in their mind how are they going to see data going forward? >> guest: it is interesting to your mentioning laws. if you think about it, facebook, twitter, insta grahams, manikins at the mall, all the things you and i are talking about, most of those technologies are in the last 10 years.

the last time our country's past significant privacy security legislation is over 12 years ago. but all of this you talked about weren't really in the consumer high and in the public eye being used on a massive scale and now they are. what do you think are the implications for loss? obviously it takes us a long time and we should be careful when we create new laws. we should be careful and deliberate when we do that. do you almost wonder what the law be outdated by the time we pass it? and so, how do we think about laws in this new digital age so that the laws can be dynamic and fluid and give us enough guidance of people don't step out of bounds and we have the right balance on individual rights and privacy. >> guest: right, that is going to be a hard challenge to solve because when you talk about data

selection, surveillance type technologies, we raise the red flag of privacy and civil rights and those things really had done the same path. the biggest concern people should be aware of and the one where citizens should put their focus in developing some real regulations and principles to go using law enforcement because law enforcement have at their disposal technology where they can write a vehicle down this weekend. two other vehicles and peered beneath peoples clothing. all of that can be done without a warrant. police have at their disposal technology emerging right now that helps them predict fine and not only predict them for the police to get a red flag for a heads up, but predict that the police can respond to those areas before a crime even occurs. that is straight out of big

brother george orwell type writings and so forth. so i think when people think of data, they need to think first and foremost what is the data used for, can i be given a heads up without compromising the security of the nation. and it now, people need to be told how that data is going to be used. specifically and most alarmingly with local police. >> host: i mean, you definitely had unfit really great areas right for law-enforcement and it's tough because they've got loved ones say and i need you to work this case. he got elected officials sometimes say this can never happen again. something as horrible as the boston marathon happening and people say how did you missed the clues and don't ever let anything like this happen again. you see the surveillance completely different. i think we all agree we don't

like tragedies like that. but you mention in the book that sometimes it is those events, it is those tragic events wherein not moment people want action and 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're looking at a research is interesting how you found the timing of when things have been allowed to occur in people said of course that is okay because timing was following the tragedy. >> guest: specifically the boston marathon. i include that in my book because history can make up their own minds whether juan forstmann was justified impossibly locking down the city and some of the actions they did to root out the terrorists and that egregious act. what i wanted to make clear is

that if enough fears generated among people, then it opens the doors to all types of civil rights infraction. the boston marathon bombing, what you saw as the city lot down. he saw mom forced me going into peoples homes without warrants, pulling people out of gunpoint. videos on youtube. different stories told in the weeks and months to follow. copy both solaris and policies were found i was all in the name of security and routing terror suspects. you can make up your own mind whether it was justified. you have to realize have to realize if enough fears generated, things really can happen in america. remember specifically one story about an alderwoman and the phone rang and she answered and she was told by the voice on the other end to answer the door. when she opened the door, she looked out and there were scores of police officers holding

weapons at her, both on her doorstep in the street. what happened and we didn't learn about this until a week later somebody had called and said that terror suspect was in her home and so the police responded. they grabbed her and they put her in detention, ultimately in a psychiatric unit for behavioral profiling and so forth. she finally got out. it is something people need to be aware. when there is spirit generated, oftentimes your security is the first thing you reach for in your civil rights you could care less about. >> host: in that particular case, too, there is some outsourcing were big data could be helpful sort of looking at surveillance, bettina misinformation. they forget there's a reason why you have the media.

the media will be indicted tourists. they may not know that the pace that independent people, posting things to the internet do. however, during all of that, there was a young man who was wrongly used and literally it took him being wrongly used. he may have that haunt him. i always feel like digital is forever unless there's something important on your hard drive and then you can't get it back. but you know, in that particular case, big data in the wrong way, drawing the wrong conclusion can be very dangerous beauty mentioned privacy issues and there's obvious that that issue for the elderly woman and then a young man who is unjustly accused by the public through crowd sourcing is produced dairy.

>> host: bright and it's something americans need to be aware of. these things can happen. what happens somebody else, what happens in your neighborhood close to home and happens to you and all of a sudden you get it and all of a sudden you're fighting for privacy and civil rights. >> host: you have done so much research on this boat here and i'm sure when you saw the headline about the right to be forgotten and basically the focus on google, but i don't think it's going to end there. were you surprised to say that you really came down unsorted tiebreak to be forgotten and they are going to be enforcing it. were you surprised to see that happen? do you think they will sort of wait and watch and see what happens? >> guest: no, i wasn't surprised at the e.u.'s actions. i don't think america will follow suit. i don't think that we are going

to have any policies put in place the clampdown on intel or intelligence agencies together security information. i think there may be some lip service paid to politically correct, you know, to basically calm the american public to say we are not going to look at information on new about a warrant for we are not going to do another repeat where we are sifting through innocent americans information. but i don't think america is going to clampdown. >> host: so your prediction is don't hold your breath waiting for the right to be forgotten. >> guest: exactly. when it comes to looking not big data and the data collection going on, you do mention in the book and you just mentioned it here, the fact that while you are looking for the bad guy, that a lot of innocent

bystanders naturally get pulled in, whether it's pictures of the location, surveillance video of the location, whether it is true that age, 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 may be looking ahead but the fact that all of us minding our own business better information, whether it's our photo, whether it's there like some facebook, whether searches on google or whether it's a picture of the dmv, all of that data has to be aggregated and used. what are some of your privacy concerns as you look ahead to the future? guest at the biggest thing is the average americans into immediate suspect by all levels and that is something that our

society has innocent until proven guilty. it's kind of a creepy feeling that they're not doing anything wrong. you know, at the same time the government should be regarded as a possible suspect. my real problem with this question is on one hand we are collecting all kinds of data across all levels of government in business, dirk, government sectors but at the same time, we are not really doing anything common sense with respect to the security of america and to do those counterterrorism initiatives that would be so send old. for instance, the same time we are collecting data on innocent americans, without our borders remain porous. if i were a terrorist right now, the ideal place for me to be would be coming up through our southern border because it's tourists right now and that is something our government should crack down on. a lot of the common sense type

security measures that the government should raise could be overlooked in a lot of the ones that seem to put innocent americans in the target i pounced upon. >> host: you bring up a really great point. you know, if you had the opportunity to build out a privacy law and there were three simple things in it. not a 1200 page law, the sort of maybe three, four simple things do not privacy law, what would your recommendation be that we look for an outlaw? >> guest: my recommendation to the first and foremost if it is a counterterrorism measure, it has to state clearly what the goal of the terrorist of measure is because way too many times they collect in the name of counterterrorism and it ends up being used for criminal aspect.

second off, giving americans the right to know first and foremost and data collection if at all possible if it's not something that's going to but the security of our nation at risk, then americans need to be aware of it. that is something easy. your iphone, that is something easy. some of these data collections are really feed to give privacy notice to americans, but they're not being done. any type of data collection and schools parent should not only be notified, but they should also be given the right to opt-in or opt-out and they should be given a voice in the decision-making process. so those are a couple things i would say. >> host: i love the idea that if you're under 18 and you're asking for my permission to administer aspirin to fight child has a headache. i would think you'd need my permission to take the iris

scanned, whatever biometric you're asking for. in my opinion, unless you're an official source in going to tell you know. thank you very much. when it comes to the research you are doing, what is one of the cases you came across that you thought this absolutely cannot be true. this cannot be happening. he got this really is happening. this case is really happening. but was the craziest tc would cover? >> guest: there were a lot of stories that could fit into that, but the one that jumped in my mind right now shows the utmost elitism of government when it comes to doing things in the name of security and let people know. there is a city council decision in scottsdale, arizona. 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 $1.3 million of taxpayer dollars to construct this building. the thing was they didn't want to tell citizens for the building was going to be though. when i called and i some what was going on, is this true because i saw other stories about first, the justification was isuzu on first building. we don't want to give a heads up to where undercover officers may walk in and out of so people can come see them. but it was ridiculous because square footage of the building dictated common sense showed where the building was going to be on the flip side if you look at washington d.c., people, 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 a building citing security reasons and not even bother to tell the taxpayers for the buildings they are paying for is going to be constructed. >> host: were there any repercussions for thought? >> guest: when they dug down, they dug down. and the next election you may see a few changes. i agree with you. but i'm not quite sure where they would put this building. maybe underground. that was really quite an interesting case. >> host: you know, one of the things you talk about those you mention we are on this dangerous course, this collision course i'm slowly but surely we justified for this reason or that reason this is why it is the case of collected data. you say it's collectible. have you seen many situations,

for example, i know there is a certain source in the u.s. that the u.s. that when the customers found out they have a spooky, creepy mendicants looking at them, they would've really flipped out if they heard about the voice once. they complained to the department store corporate headquarters then they removed those manikins. so there's an example where you can change the course if you let your voice be heard inside of the subtle, logical manner. we talk about the wish list for privacy law. what are some other things you've seen work while to reverse this course and continue the wake-up call going in for us to have the opportunity to grab her privacy back. >> guest: there have been protests around the nation when local people learn that their police department were seeking drove to purchase and use for

criminal reasons. and so, those are successful. i would say if people want to put a stop to some of the data collection that goes on were some of the militarization of police that goes on, you need to keep at your local community level because capitol hill politicians are not listening any longer. your letters and phone calls are getting dismissed and pushed it the side. at the local level, your local county government and city council control the purse strings on your police department. if you don't want your police department to have drones on and 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. they simply go to the board meetings every couple weeks am not the local level your voice will be heard. i had a few stories for that was

done in police gave up the notions of buying drones or more militarist equipment. >> host: what advice would you have for corporations? we talked early on with this around sort of the revelation of nsa. but the whole data source -- the nsa didn't put manikins in stores they didn't create microsoft. so they are basically partnering with the private sector and we know the private sector, they need to make money. that is why they produced product and at the same time we want them to know us so they can serve us better. we want her privacy protect it. you talk about in your book your privacy is important to us. you protect your privacy is of a bus support to us. what would your advice be to companies as far as the

consumers and how they treat customer data, especially going back to the principle is that you collect that we know of technology is trackable, you know the bad guys want to. we don't even need to talk about how it might be used by other companies or government organizations. the would your advice be to companies based upon your research on the next step they need to take to regain customer confidence, customer trust and start rebuilding a transparency conversation around privacy? >> guest: well, slogans are good. i think most americans would prefer full disclosure and honesty. when you saw around christmas time target shoppers, all their credit card and debit card information being swept up in doland and hacks, it was slow going to get the information on exactly how many have been

hacked. i believe the corporation was alerted to the hacking a couple weeks before they let it out into the regular public. so 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 the data they collect being used, those would be the stores people with hand to flock to because they feel comfortable. they feel as if that store corp. is putting their privacy first before the company dollar bottom line. >> host: that is a tough one if you're dealing with companies online. there is one when you are in the store. but then there's the other would you do with them online and a lot of times you get the privacy policy and that spot on your little screen and you can't go any further until you click okay. same thing with social media

services geared i find more often than not, most evil thing i know i showed that i am us feel guilty, like telling the dentist they don't floss twice a day. i know i should read the privacy policy, but i don't is when a lot of people will say. a lot of times it really is all important in your conversation around how come me to be more transparent about this coming tuesday the privacy policy is a really great place to start? but to avoid making it sound like a legal contract and instead be transparent. >> guest: simple language. i don't read half of those myself. it is so long it seems like. it seems like it is supersized the legal interests of the company. really if you are a shopper, the only way you are going to dodge the data collection and just kind of skate around all of this emerging technology is if you

pay in cash. if you're really concerned about it, you can kind of keep to a minimum your data transactions and so forth. you can take your money out of the bank and cash but you need. so when you stop paying cash, a site that if you're really concerned about it you can take a few steps on your own with or without the company. hope >> host: you are right. there is simple steps you can take or otherwise other effect is. we talked about the whole thing about don't let your cell phone talk to y five. are there things you uncovered in your research or other simple steps. some mashed -- ..