save america's future. after wards with theresa payton is next. cheryl chumley book "police state u.s.a.: how orwell's nightmare is becoming our reality" traffic light cameras, drone monitoring and more is amounting to a police state that must be rolled back. this program is about an hour. >> host: cheryl, it a pleasure to be here and i enjoyed your book "police state u.s.a.: how orwell's nightmare is becoming our reality" i am a data junky by nature. i love the opportunity to talk with people about how to protect their data. and we have so many modern day

privacy issues that are coming up. and what i love about what you do is it is so well researched and thoughtful and provoking. so i am excited to talk with you today and have a conversation about what people need to know and is there actually anything we can do about it. i think you gave me a little hope here in the book. one of things i thought was interesting was the nsa revelation. i wrote about that in my book privacy in the age of big data. and consumers don't realize bigs business collecting data and whether it is cooperation or ho cohersion is up to you.

>> thank you so much. it is a pleasure to speak with you and i'm glad you enjoyed the book. it was other factors that drove me to write the book. i have been in reporting for 15 years. i started out on the local level and covering the local government you get an idea of how this impacts government. and i remember covering county governments purchase prompts who were people's dream home and request the right to build their homes and properties and this concern county i covered it was almost like environmentalist ground zero. they didn't want to build anything there. and i recall how this family came in with hopes to build on a

$500,000 parcel of property they purchased and the local zoning people denied them until they had no more appeals left. i remember them leaving, the woman in particular, in tears because what is she going to do with this property. and i was keyed into issues like that. i am an american and constitution is a big deal. i read for fun sometimes. so i was lasered in. but covering local government issues is what drove me and i have children and i am worried about the future. >> host: you bring up the children and it is right. it is almost like what the founding fathers fought hard for through clicks and choices we have given up those freedoms.hee

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 father, the constitution, what the country was founded on, even though the technology changes the principles stay the same. >> guest: it is like if you a christian. the bible doesn't change. the constitution isn't a living, breathing document as al gore stated. the biggest notion was our rights come from god not government. and that is a powerful principle and one i fear is slipping away leading to the police-type

united states we have and my biggest concern is recapturing that and once you do that you set the nation back on the path that the founding fathers intended. >> host: in the become you tack about the places where you may not know you are being tracked. so for example, mannequins. my co-author and i talked about the same mannequins you talk about. you drive up to the shopping mall and if there is surveillance going on your license maybe paragraphed. and your phone is talking to the wi-fi in the store and they know you are there and then the the man knequi mannequins with watching trying to decide female or gender and even ethnicity to store in a

database that i guess will serve us better skwchlt. and you added they are adding listening features to the mannequins. talk about the risks and concerns and what your moment was when you saw this was going on. >> the moment is when it crosses the line from stores posting notices and cameras being displayed in prominent places so shoppers are aware they are being recorded to the point where you have no idea your movements are being records and your conversation. some of the technology they have in place, the mannequins have moved from cameras in the eye to recording devices planted in the hands of the mannequin. the reason for that is the

stores want to know the shoppers discussions to hear what they say about it products they display in their stores and can gauge what are the bestsellers and what needs to be moved off the shelves to make room for something else. the big problem is most shoppers don't know. when you walk into store it isn't like signs say this dummy is recording you. that is a little creepy that you don't know. that is something in a science fiction movie. it is interesting but in real life it is alarming. >> host: it is. i don't remember walking into a store and having them hand me a disclosure statement saying you might be photographed and i want to know what you are looking at and i will snoop in on our personal, private conservations. so i think that is one thing people need to be aware of.

it supposed to be for good things to save us money or stock things in the store i want and also to drive bottom line revenue but at what point. we know that all technology is hackable. we have seen the best and brightest get hacked into. and you know that data in the wrong hands could be potentially dangerous. and then i think as we learned when it comes to the private sector having the data then law enforcement may request access to that data as well. you could see things progressing that way whether it is recording conversations or photographs while people are shopping >> that is the big fear. in the private field when you are shopper and go in you should

be given a heads up to what information is being collected on you. most people know about zip codes and so forth. they have now technology pinging on your i-phone. if you a big shopper, it will ping and let the clerks know this big spender is here and let's swarm on them and get him or her do buy more. shoppers may appreciate the convenience but not knowing or given the choice to participate in that or not. and you have to think when stores are collecting data there is a database somewhere being kept. it isn't just data floating around. there is a database where information is sitting. if law enforcement or government surveillance oversight the justification to tap into the data you have to be aware as an american you don't have control

on the data being handed over. >> there is that -- exactly. i like to think we are innocent until proven guiltly especially if minding our again business. let's stay on the topic of facial recognition. you mention in the book, you talk about how law enforcement is using facial recognition and how a lot of state and not a few but a lot at the dmv there is a little added bonus going on with license renewal. they are asking you not to small and the reason is your photograph has a dual purpose now. it isn't just about your drivers license. >> guest: all of it is being fed into state data centers and people might know them better as fusion centers. a lot of the data is being

collected for counter terrorism reason but because it isn't generating what people expected them to it is also being used for law enforcement and fighting crime. so when you are not smiling into the camera this is another form of data collection and you should be concerned or at least curious where this is going tond up. >> host: and so we also need to think about the choices we make. so the dmv you don't have a choice. you need your license. you could go to your state governor and say you don't like the practice but you don't have a choice vme. you do have a choice on the types of pictures put out. you can take a little privacy back and maybe dmv is going through the state process but

where you post photos of yourself and where you are going and what else is accompanying now is important as well. and sometimes you can control that. let's go into the banks. because we have talked about how there is technologies now whe whereas consumers we don't remember being given a disclosure saying this is how we are going to use your data. we don't know the listening or photographing is going on. and with the banks, they have a struggle in the modern age. i remember when i first start in banking i could not believe we could not 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 see which customers opted in from marketing and i said from us or

somewhere else and they said from else. we are not allowed to get our own customers. so the banks have a duty if i collect data about you i have to disclose what i am going to do with it and also protect it. but what is is interesting is i don't think the banks realize how much the banks to told to cough up your data. if you make a deposit over $10,000 because of anti-money laundering the bank has to report now. no matter how innocent or great a customer you are they have to report that. and they have to report when you sign up for credit they have to ask a lot more questions than they normally would because they have to prove to different bure

bureaus within the government that they did their customer due diligence on you. talk about 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 lite l literally turn it over to other departments and agencies. >> guest: you describe what is 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 and saying for counter terrorism reasons you must collect information on your customers and must know them. but on the other hand the federal government isn't giving the banks a checklist of questions to ask and if banks don't ask the proper questions and something ends up being illegal the banks could be fined for that. the banks are in a tight spot right now. as a customer going into a bank, i remember when i first started banking and they used to draw

you in with a free toaster or si sign up and get something free. but that is gone. banks want to know more than your name, social security number and date of birth. they want to know where you work, where you do business, where your business that you work at does business and if the business you work at does business in an overseas location they may pry into that and the reason is they are trying to do their due diligence to keep the feds off their back. but the average american is f l feeling like they are suspected of a crime but are just trying to open a bank account. >> host: you almost think are you trying to marry me? i am just trying to open an account.

i am a mom and you are a mom and iris scans are something we are concerned about. when you put your children in the care of other's parents need to understand what maybe going on in the name of security or grade tracking for your kid. as it relates to the school, looking at things like they are going to record all of their grades online. we just saw a young man whose friends paid him to change his grade and he changed his own while he was in there. he was busted and got caught. we can see the dangers with that. some say he should not have done that and it was wrong and he will pay the price but no harm no foul because he was caught.

one of the things you write about in the book was the iris scanning solutions being used at the schools. in some regards it is touted as this is a great way for your child to get on the right bus and us to notify you they got off the bus and i am wondering what happened to a volunteer standing their saying good morning, johnny. just because technology can do it doesn't mean you should. talk about when you were researching this as a mom but also a reporter what were some of the privacy concerns that hit you in the gut that you thought people don't know about this but they need to know? >> guest: the biggest issue for me was the not telling of the parents. the issue that you are referring to happened in florida.

this was just in 2013, i believe. there was a bus that implemented an iris scanning program and parents didn't k parents didn't know about it. when the children got on the bus they were told to stare in the device and they would key it up with the data and tell parents your child is on the bus. parents were outraged because the person who was going to send a notification home was sick that day and the letters were supposed to go out but she was sick. so all of these kids were scanned on the bus and you know these are little kids. it was like first, second and third grade.

>> host: and we tell them respect authority. >> guest: right. so the parents were outraged and rightly so and the school stopped doing the program. but this shocked me this would go on. that any school thought this was necessarily and technology where parents don't need input and given the opportunity to say yea or nay to it before implementing. and stuff like this is going on with fair regularity around america. this isn't a few and far between cases as they are emerging technology and it is becoming a lot more abundant at the schools. >> host: do you feel like the hard point is the argument is this is in the name of security or convenience. that was also something else you mentioned as the other thing. whether it is paying for school

lunches or you know again getting kids on the right bus versus the wrong bus and i survived getting on and off buses but i don't know about how without scanning over my iris or tu turning over by dna. it is about security and parents are busy and let's say the notification went out and maybe other think that is great. my school is implementing the latest and greatest technology to protect my children and they are not thinking about well if all technology is hackable, and this company who i don't know -- it isn't my school. it has been outsourced has my child's eye scan and if someone steals it my kids can't get a new eye. now they can go masquerading as my child whether it is for health care, trying to get into

buildings once my children are older, whatever the scan is tied to someone else may have the codes and the technology and literally fake out on iris scanner and that is part of the danger, too. people are not thinking about there is the privacy aspect on the front end of having full disclosure but on the back end if someone steals this unique data about you how are you going to recover? >> guest: it is worse than someone stealing your credit card information. you touch on a point when you bring up it is for the security or for the children. you can always make a worse case argument to justify about any action on the part of the government. and with technology and iris scanning, biometrics and things

like that and often times it is that worst case scenario that is being sighted as justification for everyone to participate in the new technology. as a parent that is something you need to be aware of and your local school could be looking at the technology as a way of securing your child. >> you never think as a parent you would have to say i want you to respect authority unless they ask you to give up your biometric data. then call me or text me better yet. speaking of the whole thing with disclosures and eyes and kids and when we think about kids and we think about talking to them about the different aspects of life and you talk about the birds and the bees talk. now if someone mentions bird and bees they might be talk about the drones. the fact that a lot of time when

we hear drones people think they are official military or law enforcement use devices and they don't realize, no, they are literally as small and blending into nature as a bee or bird at this rate and some of the challenges with anybody can have a drone. there as anale elected official that looked out her window and there was a drone. talk about that. >> guest: issues like drones cross republican parties. it is republicans and democrats with the same concern. this was senator diane feinstein in this instance. she was in her home and looked out the window and there was a drone outside her window and she took that experience to congress and warned her congressional

colleagues to go slow on drone technology. as far as drone technology goes i think that horse is out of the barn and i think at this point there is not really a lot people can do to slow it as far as the private sector goes. the congress has tasked the fcc to come up with policies for commercial use of drones by 2015. amazon indicated it wants to use drones to make product deliveri deliveries. there was a pizza chain that was going to use drones to deliver pizza. people will look at drones coming in and delivering amazon products as a cool thing and they will use that and they going to use that cool idea of science fiction coming alive. but when law enforcement wants to step in and use the same drones to conduct surveillance operations i think that is where people are going to be more

alarmed. >> host: and you talk about we have cases where we are actually arrested citizens using drones and you know, i mentioned some of the drone challenges in the book i did. and what was interesting when i was going to research there was a cottage industry that is cropping up anti-drone hoodies and glasses. and you mentioned in the book sometimes as simple as smiling helps. but wearing a hoody when a drone is targeted on you for some type of conflict isn't probably going to do it. talk a little bit about the conflicts we have had where we had in the name of security -- there was a gentlemen who basically kidnapped a boy off a bus and used drone technology to

savely rescue that boy. now as a parent, my heart knows out to that parent. i say that sounds like the correct and reasonable use of technology. then you talk about another case where cows started eating another farmer's feed grain and that is stuff is expensive and cows eat a lot and his family ended up in a stand off with the police and drones got involved and the police were able to get the cows and arrest the family. talk about the two scenario. one you rescue a life and the other you are borrowing a drone to get in a situation. what are the slippery slopes from a privacy perspective?

>> guest: right. it is a slippery slope and i like that wording. this brings about the moral ethics of raising questions in war but drones on american soil when you use them for criminal reasons, a boy kidnapped off a bus and held underground in a bunker for several days, people can relax on that and understand good, let's get this guy. there was drones use to root out a police shooter and that was just within the last year. some american citizens saw the justification for that. but when you use drones for environmental reasons like the epa wants to do to search the fields and make sure crops are not violating environmental laws -- that might be where you

want to draw the line. or surveillance technology where police don't need a warrant but send the drones up in the sky. >> host: they have to have a warrant to search my house but if they want to search over my house and yard they can get a drone without a warrant? >> guest: police don't have the right to use drones for survey technology. if they want to use a drone to conduct a surveillance operation they can use one of custom and border patrols and ask for them to conduct the operation. but in the years to come, as drones become more common place and americans become more accepting of drone use, if police departments are able to use the drones one of the questions to ask is when the

drone is flying above prop property, it is sweeping up all types of data that is not pertinent to the suspect it is searching for. you could be standing by and walking down the street and your images are being captured on the video in the drone and that is something that most americans may not think of when they give the thumbs up to using drones to fight criminals. but you have to think where is my data going if it is captured. the law enforcement has the data. >> host: didn't we just get on google's case when street view was taking pictures and picked up our own wi-fi networks and devices connected and everyone said that is not right. you should not be doing that. you have crossed the line. so we had that to a private sector company. i would think that we will say

the same thing to law enforcement or even -- i have seen where they have said that su counties used drone technology combined with google street view to see if people put in pools without permits. so to your point: where do we draw that line? that brings up an interesting point. when we look at whether it is presidential election or elected officials in washington or at home, we often talk about the fashion national or local economy, national security or local issues it if is a local issue. do you think the third think on the list might start to need to be around how are you greg to protect a citizen's right to privacy in the digital age?

>> guest: i definitely think that is a question candidates for office should be asked and f f prepared to answer. there has been a lot of instances had they occurred at the time of my research i would have included in the book. the advance of data and emerging technology is hard to put to jeanne back in the bottle once it is out there soia -- so you need policies -- guiding the technology. and that should start with the public being aware of how it will be used. police departments shouldn't have drones they can take out whenever they want. they should have policies and guidelines. what types of crimes can be used with drones, what happens to the

data once collected and there should be oversight on how the police use the data afterwards. if it is going to be destroyed, there should be a watch dog to make sure it is destroyed. so they need have in their mind how they will treat data going forward. >> host: facebook, twitter, instagram, the mannequins at the mall -- all of things you and i are talking about, most of the technologies are in the last ten years. and the last time our count ray passed significant privacy or cyber security legislation was over 12 years ago. all of the things we talked about were not in the consumer eye and the public eye being used on a massive scale and now they are. what do you think are the implicati

implications for laws? it takes us a long time and we should be careful and deliberate when creating laws but you almost wonder if the law is going to be outdated by the time we pass it. how do we think about laws in this new digital age because they can be dynamic and fluid and give us enough guidance so people don't step out of bounds. and we have the right balance on individual rights and privacy. >> guest: that is going to be a hard challenge to solve. 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 head down the same path. the biggest concern i guess people should be aware of and the one where a citizen should put their focus in developing some real, you know, reg laulars

and principles to go by is law enforcement law enforce. can ride down the street and peer into our vehicle and peer into your clothing to see what is being carried on you. and that can be done without a warrant. police have technology that can predict crimes before they occur and not only so they can get a red flag but predict them they can spond to the areas of the suspected crime before the crime occurs. and that is straight from big brother writings and so forth. so i think when people think of data they need to think first and foremost what is the data being used for. people need to be in control of how the data is allowed to use

specifically and most alarming with local police departments. >> host: you have hit on gray areas for law enforcement and it is tough right now because they have one saying i need you to work this case. you have elected officials sometimes saying this can never happen again. when you look at something as horrible as the boston marathon bombing and people saying how did you miss the clues and don't let anything like this happen again. so you see the next boston marathon and you see the surveillance is different. i think we would all agree we don't like tragedies like that. you mention in the book it is those events and tragic events where in that moment people want action. and sometimes they don't realize when they ask for quick action

they maybe trading their privacy. talk about what you discovered when you looked at your research and found the timing of when things are allowed to occur and people said of course that is okay because the timing followed a tragedy. >> guest: right. and specifically the boston law enforcement and you can read and determine if the city was determined in looking out the city. but what i want to make clear is if enough fear is generated among people it opens to doors to civil rights infractions. with the boston marathon bombing you saw people going into the homes pulling people out at

gunpoint without a warrant. and there were stories about how civil rights were trampled. if enough fear is generated these types of things can happen in america. and i remember specifically one story about an elderly women when was in her home and the phone range and she answered it and was told by the voice on the other end to open her door. when she looked out there were scores of armed officers holding weapons at her on her door step and across the street. what happened was somebody called and said the terror suspect was in her home and so the police responded, grabbed her and put her in detention. ultimately in a unit for behavioral profiling.

she finally got out and there was no crime. but it is something that people need to be aware. when there is fear generated, your security is what you reach for and your civil rights you could care less about. >> reporter: in that particular case there was crowd source going on. people are looking at surveillance and misinformation and forget there is a reason why you have a media. the media is a trusted, embedded source and they may not move at the same pace of people posting on the internet about they don't release data until it is trusted and vetted. and during 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 feel like digital is forever unless it was on your hard drive and you cannot get it back but someone has it. big data used the wrong way and drawing the wrong conclusion can be dangerous. you mentioned the privacy issue and there is an issue for that elderly women. and a young man who is unjustly accused by the public through crowd sourcing is a scary thought. >> host: right. it is something that americans need to be aware of. these things can happen. when it happens to someone else it can be dismissed. in your neighborhood it is closer to home and when it happens to you you get it and you are fighting for your privacy and civil rights.

you have done so much research on this and when you saw the headline of the right to be forgotten and the focus on google were you surprised seeing the eu coming down on the right to be forgotten and they will be enforcing that. were you surprised to see that happening? do you think the united states will follow course? >> guest: no, i wasn't surprised with the eu's action. i don't think america will follow suit. i don't think we will have any policies that will clamp down on intell or our intelligence agency to gather information. they are trying to calm the public saying we will not look at information on you without a

warrant or doing another nsa repeat where we sift through innocent americans information. but i don't think america is going to clamp down. >> host: your prediction is don't hold your breath waiting for the right to be forgotten in the united states. you mention in the book that the fact while you are looking for the bad guy that a lot of innocent by standers naturally get pulled in with that feed. whether it is pictures of a location, surveillance video of a location, whether it is drone footage, photos of every person who gets a license at the dmv and all of that going into the database you have done nothing wrong. what are your concerns after

doing the research and looking ahead maybe with the fact that all of us minding our own business and our information whether it is our photo, whether it is our likes on facebook, whether it is our searches on google or or pictures at the dmv and having that data being used and what are your privacy concerns as you look ahead to the future? >> guest: it turns average americans into media suspects by all lefbldz levels of the government. we have the principle of innocent until proven guilty. it is a creepy feeling if you are not doing anything wrong but the government is regarding you as a possible suspect. my real problem with this data collection is that we are collecting all kinds of data across all levels of government in business and private sector

and 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 counter terrorism type initiatives that would be simple to take. at the same time we are collecting data on innocent americans we are letting the borders remain pourious. if i were a terrorist the ideal place would be coming up through the southern border. it is pourous and i think the government could crack down on that. a lot of the simple things being overlooked but the ones that put innocent americans in the target are being pounced upon. >> host: you bring up a great point. if you had the opportunity to build out a privacy law and

there are three simple things in it. not a 1200 page law but sort of any three or four simple things in the privacy law. what would your recommendation be that you look for in the law? >> guest: if it is a counter terrorism measure it has to state what the goal of that counter terrorism measure is. way too many times data is being collected in the name of counter terrorism and it ends up being cruised for criminal aspects. and second of all, i think that giving americans the right to know should come first and foremost in data collection if possible. if it isn't something that is not going to put the natn at ri need to be aware of it. and specifically in the stores with the dummy. your i-phone or something easy. some of the data collections are

easy to give privacy notifications to americans but they are not being done. iris scanning on your students. any type of data collection in schools parents should be notified but they should be given the right to opt in or opt out and should be given a voice in the decision making process. >> host: those are great. if you are under 18 and asking my permission to adminster asprin for a head cake and i would think you would need it for a bioscan. and unless you are an official source i trust with the data i will tell you no, thank you very much. when it comes to the research you were doing, what is one of the cases you came across and you thought this absolutely cannot be true. this can't be happening. so you just kept digging into

and digging in and thought this cause was happening. what was the craziest story? >> guest: there are many but the one jumping to mind shows the elitism of the government and not letting people know. there was a legal decision in scot scottsdale, morns. -- arizona -- they voted to spend 1.3 million of taxpayer dollars to construct the building but they didn't want to tell citizens where the building was going to be build and when i called and asked if this was true the justification was this

is a law enforcement build and we don't want to give a heads up of where the undercover officers can be seen by people. on the flip side of that, if you look up in washington, d.c.,it isn't like they hide the intel buildings. people come and go all of the time and you can see who walks in and out of them. i thought that was an egregious example of how a local government board could spend mil millions on a building and not tell the taxpayer where they are billing it. >> host: any reprocusions for

that >> guest: hope. >> host: one of the things you talk about is you mention we are on a dangerous course and a collision course of justifying for this reason or that reason this is why it is okay to collect this data. but you say it is correctable. have you seen any situations where so for example i know there was a department store here in the united states and when their customers found out they had the spooky creepy mannequ mannequins looking at them they would have creeped out if they heard about the voice one. they complained to the head quarters and removed the mannequins. so there is an example of where you could change the course if you left your voice be heard and

this is a civil logical manner. what are other things you have seen work well to resource the course and continue the wake-up call going and for us to have to opportunity to grab our privacy back. >> guest: there have been protest around the nation when local people learned the police department was researching drones to use for criminal reasons. those are successful. if people want to put a stop to the data collection or the militarization of police that knows on you need to keep it at your local community levels. capital hill politicians are not listening. the letters and phone calls are

getting dismissed. about your local governments control the purse strings on your police department. so if you don't want your police department to have drones you can go to your local board meetings and petition your politicians to not pay for this type of technology. you can use that very simply just go to the board meetings that are held every couple weeks. at the local level your voice will be heard. i have seen stories where just that was done and police gave up the notions of buying drones or militarized equipment. >> host: what advise do you have for corporations? we talked about this and the book opens up with the revelations of the nsa but they didn't put the mannequins in the

store or create microsoft. they were partnering with the private sector. and we know the private sector needs to make money. that is why they produce products. but at the same time we want them to know us but we want our privacy protected. microsoft had the slogan and you talk about it in the book of your privacy is important to us and protecting your privacy is the upmost importance to us. what is your advice to companies as far as their transparency to consumers and how they treat customer data especially going back to the principal of if you collect it -- principle -- and we know all technology is hackable, you know the bad guys want it. so we don't need to talk about other companies or government organizations, what about cyber criminals. so what is your advice to

companies on the next step they need to take to regain customer confidence, customer trust and start rebuilding a transparency conversation around privacy. >> slogans are good but i think most americans prefer full d disclosure. when you saw around christmas and the target shoppers having their information stolen and hacked. it was slow going on getting the information on how many were hacked and the corporation found out a couple weeks before releasing it to the public. the stores that people tend to

flock to are the ones using this technology because they feel comfortable and like the store or corporation is putting their privacy needs first before the company dollar/bottom line. >> host: and that is a tough one. if you are dealing with companies online especially. there is one when you are in the store but the other when you deal with them online. you get the privacy policy in the tiny screen and you cannot go further until you click further. same with social media services. more people say i know i should and it is like telling the dentist you didn't floss twice a day. and i will say it is in small point font so i understand but it is so important. and your conversation about how

companies need to be more transparent about this. do you think the privacy policy is a great place to start and let's throw away making it sound like a legal contract and be transparent, right? >> simple language. i don't read half of those myself. they are so long it seems like. and it seem like it is to protect the legal interest of the company. really, though, if you are shopping the only way you will dodge this data collection and just kind of skate around this emerging technology is if you way in cash. i mean if you are concerned about it, you can kind of chekea minimum your data transaction and take your money out of the bank in cash and when you shop pay in cash. you can take a few steps on our own without the companies.

>> host: are there other steps you felt are effective. you talk about cash and don't let your cellphone talk to wi-fi. are there other things you uncovered in your research? >> guest: america turned toward this social media phase and everything you do in life is on facebook and twitter. that is all data you are putting out there. no one is asking for it. you are isravoluntarisraevolunt out there. stop doing half of the social media stuff if you are concerned. there a few steps americans can take. we don't have to live in the woods as a hermit but you will not get away from all of the

data collection going on. >> host: as you were doing the research and drawing different conclusions the biggest take away you would want people to take from the book and i know what people -- there are a couple things that resinated and they were themes that carried over when i wrote by book on privacy and your tie back to the founding fathers and the constitution and the personal rights that could be one or two things you would want someone listening today or when they read your book, what would you want them to take away from the conversation? >> guest: i want people to be aware these are all case studies drawn from recent media events. these are not conspiracy type made up events where i am alleging we are on this police state track and it is just a crazy tin foil hat argument.

these athings you can see every day. and the biggest take away i will like people to remember is this notion was founded on the rights come from god not government. if you think of that, look around me, read by book and see how far we strayed from that and once that is gone where else ask you go and live as free as we are supposed to be. >> host: that is at a great take a way. great book. i enjoyed it. it was hard to put down. a read a few things a couple times. you did a fabulous job and highly recommend this for everybody. anyone in the united states needs to read this book. an