claims from more than 125 days since submission. by the end of fiscal year '15. i remain confident that it's going to happen. .. fiduciary administration, or

introduce your relationships on behalf of veterans. creams in the appeals process, not necessarily sent to the board, but they're still in dba because that is where the majority of the claim said. we've got a laundry list of initiatives. automation initiatives, staffing initiatives and the like that we ask cube within the context of the resources we've got. he may or may not recall when i came in on the 24th of july and said we need $17.6 billion. there is actually $360 million for vba for us to be able to hires that for non-rating claims appeals and fiduciary. it is still personnel research institute press. >> is there any room to begin to look at how we assign presumptions based on an mos or where somebody was deployed. they're submissive that right now. catoctin here before the number

one benefit application being hearing loss and can we increase presumptions based on an mos perhaps as a way -- >> that's a good question. i don't know which the extent that has been out. >> the last to bring to your attention i know its resources so i'm not expecting an answer today. the sheer number now has gotten to the point where even the congressional backlog in the lives being honest and working well with us, but they are happy to share with us that now i don't know if the numbers exactly right, but about 1700 congressional seminar region. i understand how the staff balances all those congressional's. but it's changing the model casework a little bit because teachers are coming back saying what really is the benefit now

if coming to a member of congress were historically it has seen the benefit and we are able to work closely with the regional office and improve the timeliness and also some very specific cases would certainly be of help together with the va. i bring that to your attention as well as the department continues to look at the vba side or the more human stories are i'm not side, but the sheer number of calls out of frustration are really on the vba side. >> i understand. thanks to raising the congressional issue. >> understand the climate. given the news stories, that is our job to fight for them and that is just increasing the volume we bring in the regional office. >> i will do a deeper dive. >> thank you very much. >> ms. brown comair recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. secretary. it has been a real joy working with you and also with the secretary when he visited florida, we went to the medical school together any talk to those residents and they were very interested in the program and i think you'd going out and talking to the medical schools, they were very engaged in very interested in participating. i just want to clear up a few things since there's been a lot of discussion about for constitutional rights the va employees have as it relates to their job. i understand the united states supreme court has ruled you had to post action process for appeals are us they can throw field cases. can you elaborate on not a little bit? >> i don't know if i am familiar

with the supreme court decision mayor, but i too believe congresses ultimate decision to provide an appeal mechanism in the authority past i think reflected the body of case law that existed in the conclusion that he would need to do that in order to withstand judicial scrutiny. >> you cut down and i think he is to be longer and now it's five days. the process ads in there as long as it is to be legal. >> to case law is very clear about providing a federal employee an opportunity to respond to charges. so that happening today under title five is 30 days. that's why mentioned earlier trying to tear to the spirit of congress' intent. we short not to the minimum amount we thought we couldn't still meet the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond.

batman is not really an appeal. that is just an opportunity to respond. a final decision is made in the appeal process happens after that, very expeditiously in line with permissions of the law. >> one of the concerns of moore during the the process in the orlando area, and some attention was brought to it because of the scheduling process. they hadn't been trained or they didn't have the equipment, so they were doing part of it on paper and we corrected that issue. >> absolutely has been correct it. yes, ma'am. one of the things i think it's very important we have a comprehensive program. many think about the mental health we are interested in and have the adequate providers. it is the housing issue. it is comprehensive. what are we doing to work with

our stakeholders to make sure we have the partner sweeney to address the homelessness is not the other the other problems we experience in the system. >> that's a great question. i often times point to the work going on in veteran homelessness with what i would characterize as best in class collaboration across the federal government, up-and-down government through federal government states and local government and then across into the nonprofit sector and the private sector. when you get inside the work going on on veteran homelessness, it is remarkable the way that government has found together with the private sector true partnership kind of collaborative effort and that is the reason we are getting the traction of reducing veteran homelessness. not as fast as we want to reduce it, but we are making progress there. >> and what are we talking

about? companies like the exact and others coming to the table. i want to thank you all for bringing them to the table because that is making a difference in how we address the needs of the veteran. we all participate in the november the 11th celebration, but the point is we've got to work to gather with our stakeholders. >> you're absolutely right. there were three areas where we have to rely on that broad collaborative engagement. veteran homelessness is certainly one of those. and i set the u.s. chamber of commerce last night correct a show if we meet the needs of our veterans. >> once again, thank you for your service. i think it is a misnomer to let the veterans think we're in a crisis mode. i appreciate the leadership and the fact is they should be

confident that we are going to work together as a team and make sure we address the issues. >> secretary bob said i can't leave. i don't think i am going anywhere. >> thank you. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and committee members for allowing me to sit on on this committee. you have a hard job. i know the frustration sometimes for new people on the block. there's a context they are, but hang in, you are trying i think. so when you look at the mouth of america, the red and blue one, you see much of america, most of it is rural. not an population but its geography. you have many veterans that live in those rural areas. a big part of the choice act was to give them the opportunity to

have a better opportunity to get the care they need approximate to them. northern california, for example. now when we see mr. kirkpatrick talking about the post office for example, they are threatening to close a mail processing center in the land will go to sacramento to read area the size of illinois so we know it is going to slow down. that is one fact here. receive the facilities veterans for specialty care are generally going to be in sacramento or the bay area if they are going to va facility. bluegray facilities that can do much of the same names. so let's say you live in tule lake, california, in which the federal government the federal government incentivize world war ii vet to settle after the war. you are a long way from anywhere up there. my understanding it has one.rene

preval class affair. or maybe have to go to reno. all of those are our anne hathaway, but the geographical weather, other challenges for the veteran to go through. would make it they are coming it for specialty care such as the more difficult things to administer. what we're looking on the three year the interpretation by the va is that congress didn't write this wide enough for narrow enough for whatever it is to define that the veterans have more choices. and so, we are frustrated because this is the intent. it certainly wasn't the intent of the committee for the house for veterans within 40 miles of a facility, but there's no specialty care for somehow having example command of the va facility here at not being doing now with good va web, but you don't have any chance of getting what you need.

you have to go to another within 40 miles. neither in the category you have to go out early today which is a five-hour drive and they can get the shuttle bus at 4:00 a.m. do you see where we are going to set the interpretation of what we are looking for as i always think the tie should go to the veteran. dave served honorably and they are still being put to these. there's still more time i to get open up, but what can you tell me today going back a little bit under the old block on the new law, how often did the va use the authority to previously allow the veteran to serve nearby. >> a couple of comments and then dr. tuchschmidt may have a thought or two to add. i mentioned a couple times in a

statement when we were interpreting actions under the law, we were looking to do the right and for veterans and be the best we can do a taxpayer resources. we haven't seen the final numbers on physical year 14 appointments completed in the community, but i'm going to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 million. 18 million appointments completed in the community. not in va, that were referred by the va in the community. >> or it may come you said you're a minute by $6 billion to do that. is that we receive the real limitation is? >> correct, yes. first of all, we are referring and awful lot of veterans, including rural veterans for care in their community. secondly, as we look at the act and try to understand the intent of congress mla talk with congressional budget office to learn how it learn how is scored, clearly the legislation was scored based on 40 miles from the nearest va medical

center. >> we don't have a lot of crows anyway. >> so one of the things we did as we were trying to make right decision here. how can we evaluate? is there some way we could afford to open the aperture and interpret this differently? we took for example another pitch in to help me with the numbers. we took for example and say okay, how many veterans have we got that live 40 miles from a level to medical facility? stomata level one, still don't do everything at a medical center, a level to medical center, but we do a lot of things, a lot of specialty care. >> we have a veteran that could go 15 miles an start will be required to go 85 for 15 minutes five days a week.

so this level to include chemo? >> level two i would expect would include chemotherapy and he will correct me if i say something wrong. because what happens is you then open up a fourth figure veteran population for eligibility for that care. round numbers were talking somewhere in the $30 billion range to be able to feel. >> i have to stop here and then i would like to confer with you on not because the 438 better in the north half of california, the staff would he do once available to be able to use this card in this context here, which is that going to do anything but backlog. i would like to clarify that with you at a later date. just a moment on due process. you can hardly touch. we've had a veteran where they came to his door, two asians

ceased to dede 214 and cut off his benefits. he and his wife were in their 80s. they need this in this document is without a receipt and also they have not had their day in court. meanwhile they've been accused of something and they have the right to have face of the day soon because their benefits are gone. >> please provide me the veteran's name. >> while anyway, they appreciate the indulgence of the committee. >> representative murphy, thank you for your patience. your recognizer five minutes. >> is a former member, appreciate the opportunity to ask questions as a follow-up to the pittsburgh nightmare. several people died and several were sickened by it. heart of the problem occurred as the director received a bonus of some $60,000 even though it's been investigated at that time, they still went ahead and the

award was for infection control of all things. other things have come up. as of today we learned the former head of the hospital this did let go permanently. but there's another problem to occur and that is the deputy during the hospital, david ward was involved in the chain of e-mails, which we found for decisions were made to withhold information while degeneres was discovered in the chanel was the water system. a time it would've been critically important to notify the public if you've had the symptoms have been to the va, tell us. instead, they withheld information. we also found e-mails where they disparage senator bob casey and myself is that somehow asking questions is wrong as opposed to asking themselves what did they do wrong? we find out david ford has been promoted. i think that is indefensible,

incomprehensible and sends a terrible message that you know what, if you hide information and even though people died, they're going to get promoted. even terry wool, she told the court, don't withhold this information. mr. quirk called me along with director wolf on the phone, too. he told me you would want you to know there's no waiting list of the pittsburgh pa. if the first of all, coming from you or not she believe it because you distorted and withheld information before. second that, why are you calling me out of the blue? you mean you have no waiting list and i began to name every possible medical, oncology, no waiting list, no waiting list. but i trees a little bit longer. i said something still doesn't smell right here, but okay. 40 minutes later i got to the pittsburgh pa syzygy are about

this lady must? but i'm waiting list. they have names that went back to years for people for the near list and i guess they didn't call that a waiting list because they were waiting for an appointment because they didn't have an appointment yet. i said what you call that when they see any service or the va in the time you get back? i call that waiting. >> i call that we must, too. they just promoted him. the disparaging comments he made about the senator is man's if we are doing something wrong by investigating committee pulled died in this process. he's involved in people withholding information to the public in on the public in on this as well, where he directly misled me on information. i want you to look into that because if you are trying to change the morale of the va and hold people accountable, incomprehensible mamet this is told he's promoted. the comments i've heard is what are we supposed to do? whistleblowers get fired.

whistleblowers get demoted. we get disparaged in harassment in who i will be a witness if you want to testify who had been lied to. i hope you look into this. it's an important issue. >> i will work into the allegations you raise about the way this conversation. i obviously am not aware of that. i would also tell you very early on if i'm not mistaken, i believe it was shortly after i became the act secretary, i went back on pittsburgh and asked folks to go back and look at all of the investigative material. there were, as you might expect, dozens and dozens of pages of material, ig review, criminal review, fbi and the like because the question i was asking was for their instances where there was misconduct by management

negligence or accountability action should have been taken that have not been taking? what i was able to determine was another instance where there was some culpability identified, there had been some action taken. i would tell you i might not have agreed and in all likelihood would not have agreed that the nature of those actions, but i had no leeway to go back and address those because those actions had been closed out completely. i had no new evidence to use to pursue those particular instances except in one instance and that is the one instance he one instance you refer to a moment ago. >> i hope you'll continue to review these things. i sent a letter year ago to get information on the other problems people had and what disciplinary action is going to take place and we have yet to hear back on those. i would love to have that information. >> will go back and look at the

response tobaccos i'm not aware we've got many congressional responses are standing for the pair time. >> thank you. there's several other things i would say to discuss with you and the secretary to make some recommendations. i'm lieutenant commander in the navy and i do mitral time that walter reid bethesda hospital. i know we still have problems with the continuity between dod and va and sometimes people are kept in the military beyond retirement or beyond the separation to continue to take care because they feel to get the va system builders often won't get the same quality of care. push of a smooth come easy handout for people or confident about about the care they get. with that, mr. chairman i thank you a note back. >> thank you yet if there's no further questions. >> i just want to make comments as to what he just said about dod and the va. we worked a long time to get the continuity between the va and

dod. i don't necessarily know the va's resistance, but where congress keep pushing for it because it needs to be seamless. that transfer is one of the problems. for a long time, the veterans couldn't get the service because we couldn't get the files because it burned up in some place somewhere. it is not necessarily the va's problem with the system. can you respond to that quick >> that's a fair statement. but the past several years it's clear there's been a vast amount of progress made, but i would also tell you there is still a gap in too many servicemen and women fall through that gap that we are committed to do everything we can, working collaboratively with the department of defense to close the gap. >> thank you did i get that good >> of the ranking members of further comments, the panelist

excuse. thank you very much, mr. secretary for testimony. i ask unanimous consent that all members are five legislative days to revise and extend the remarks and include extraneous material. without objection so ordered. once again, i think all of our witnesses and not its members for joining in today's conversation. this hearing is now adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the house and senate back in session for one more week where they take a thanksgiving break. joining us to talk about that week in what we can expect, the chief congressional correspondent for the "washtington examiner." let's start off in the senate

and the plan to take up a bill on tuesday on the keystone xl pipeline. six hours of debate scheduled for that though. that is mary landrieu spill, the democrat from louisiana. why are they taking this up now and how does it tie into her reelection campaign and the runoff? >> right, there's a battle right now between two city lawmakers. one in the hospital when the senate. what senate. one is a republican by the name of bill cassidy and the senate we have mary landrieu the democrat. they had an election on november 4th, but there is not a prevailing candidate with 50% of the vote. there has to be a runoff election. that is scheduled for december december 6th. in the interim, each lawmaker is trying to show voters what kind of impact or influence they have on capitol hill. the best way to do that for either of them is to push a vote on the keystone xl project, which is essentially a pipeline

for the oil sands of alberta canada that will eventually extend all the way to the gulf coast where there are oil refineries of cores in louisiana that promises job growth. both to the economy in louisiana is a big oil-producing, oil refining state. both lawmakers want to look like they're the ones who are going to bring this keystone xl project to life. today in the house, there was a vote on the keystone xl project. a birdie has several votes on this republican-led representatives. they voted overwhelmingly, mostly with republican support to greenlight the keystone xl project, which president obama has put on hold, awaiting further analysis for safety and environmental impacts. the senate next week we are going to see the same thing happened. the outcome there is slightly

less certain because the senate is still governed by democrats. there will big apple until the end of the year. it is unclear right now whether they will get 60 votes needed to pass keystone. there have been convicting reports. some say they are a vote shy of that. i think it's possible that it will pass. the problem there for keystone proponents is president obama has said that he's not ready to greenlight this project for a variety of reasons. so whether we end up law is still hugely up in the air. but this is mostly about is a political battle over the seat in louisiana, which of course is very important to both hardee's. democrats want to hang onto that seat and republicans are hoping to take up another seat to add to their new majority. that will start in january. so it's an interesting vote that brings together both politics

and policy in the more exciting of the two votes will be next week in the senate. >> as you mentioned, her rival in that election has been spearheading in the house and he was successful. >> he was. i promoted his ability or desire to have an impact on capitol hill throughout his campaign and he tried to show senator landrieu is someone who is ineffective, even though she was chairwoman of the energy committee and the senate. it's a tough position to be in for a democrat from louisiana because democrats often push for green energy odds. mary landrieu has been walking the fine line politically throughout her career here in congress and she's also from a sickly escape that is considered a red state but does the lack democrats. so she is a bit of an endangered specie of u.s. it is innate right now she is down double digits in the latest polls.

it is a real tough uphill battle for her right now to hold onto her seat and per cassidy, you know today's vote is another feather in its captain sort of how is getting on her politically. >> susan, let's turn now to another vote we will see the on tuesday which is the nsa surveillance programs, the way he sensenbrenner. ..

>> >> it has fewer provisions in net that proponents stopping data collections feel are necessary so it is not the same bill and has to

be a unification of those pieces of legislation. not a lot of time for congress to work on this and though they have to bring these up from scratch if that happens. but there is definitely momentum. which came up by surprise people were not expecting the majority leader harry reid to bring it to the floor but he did unexpectedly. there are advocates on both sides of the house and the senate to get this done by the end of the year that people will be closely watching. >> host: president obamacare says he will push for immigration and changes there and he could take executive action as early as next week. keys -- he treated about all options are on the table to fight executive action but no government shut down.

if the government did take action what are the options congress may take? >> guest: someone to include a provision in the spending bill that would strip funding for executive action. but that could get democrats of said in the center is -- in the senate. and seeing october 2013. that led to a 16 day a government shutdown. both in the house and the senate republican leaders are saying no to that option in. so that limits what they can do talk about taking the president to court over this which is the much more protracted exercise but they are facing a dilemma right now how to handle this. there is a huge outstanding

question when the government will act that the congress will take up said expires. if they wait until they pass something that may buy time to deal with this issue. the president is weighing whether to act next week or later in december that would still fulfill the promise to take action before the end of the year. >> host: you can follow up susan ferrechio on twitter and also though washington examiner.com web site. thank you >>

[inaudible conversations] republicans are saying we would like to see the president not do what he plans on doing. we would like to work together with him but the american people deserve to have confidence in the actions of the house and the senate and the president. if he unilaterally does this, he is risking once again false hope for people who are in this country who would like to have us a and understand what is happening. it will cause a rush to the border that is very dangerous for people and creates uncertainty. i can tell you with the

republican conference will come up with a great bill in the new term where we will work carefully with the american people to understand why we need to have an immigration bill that is a guest worker plan to involve the american people to understand and have confidence. >> that people want to go for broke. then that takes us back to where we were. >> if the president will be very thoughtful and careful about what he does, we can avoid that. >> see you say there is an equal chance that the president can understand the ramifications of his unilateral action will have significant impact on this country and we have to work together. >> what about the various factions?

>> we're not here to control anybody but take those ideas to make circumstances better for employers and people who are here. >> you said the president should challenge republicans but isn't the reality you know, what he once. -- once? so can you come up with a compromise idea on your own? >> i think if the president takes an action should challenge us within the first six months to produce a plan. that is what i said. if he wants to be engaged he should challenge us to legislatively work with him to produce a plan that the american people could be thoughtful about and understand. no way do i tell him to challenge us. >> deducing republicans are able to get something done that could be law within the

first six months? >> i will tell you that i believe we can work on a guest worker plan that will allow people in this country to understand their responsibilities which will not cause a rush at the border than we can carefully plan of what we're doing and the american people can have a voice and in support of that. i do believe that is possible and why the president should not unilaterally do something. the american people said they do not have confidence. that is why there is the governor in maryland and illinois that is republican. the president should take to heart what type of leader he is. if he does that alone to cause these factions, you

see what happens for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. so what the american people want and need unfortunately he will get that back. so we are trying to say let's stick together. he needs to help us to work through the process that is well understood and then he will do honor to his service as president for this great nation. that is how america works. when we work together. with the republican conference is up to the task. thank you very much.

>> the main thing about my age training that i'd like to think is the gentleman who went over before me came back and it taught me. my instructor was attending capt. leonard saxon add of

four worth texas. he came back and taught me how to fly to do combat fighting, "nightline", a cross-country, and they taught me well. they taught us well. my other claim to fame is in the primary, if you're interested in flying after 28 hours they want to give you a test. it is for you to prove you have learned what your instructor is supposed to have taught you. my first was with chief anderson who had happened to take mrs. roosevelt up. i did not know any of this until after the service but that was the big deal when i

found out that was the man who gave me my first chance.

the privacy's civil liberty board held a seminar examining the intersection of privacy and technology we heard from lawyers and open government advocates during this one hour 45 minute panel. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. this is a public meeting on defining privacy. this is november 12, 2014 meeting in the washington marriott georgetown hotel in washington d.c.. this was announced on the federal register october 21st. all five board members are president -- present and there is the core of.

-- core of my now called the meeting to order. proceed. what is privacy? the right to be left alone? the desire of personal activity the right to make decisions regarding private matters? states for intellectual developments and anonymity? freedom from public attention freedom from being observed or disturbed by a others? freedom from intrusion? avoiding public disclosure about yourself and freedom from publicity which places you in a false light stemming from appropriation of your name or likeness and control how personal information is collected and used and freedom from surveillance. these are a few definitions given to privacy in the past i suspect we will hear others.

the meeting today we'll form the approach to privacy issues of the statutory mandate. the first will focus on defining privacy interest. the second will consider counterterrorism and the path of technology. next we will hear from government regarding to identify and address and the final panel is lessons learned from the private sector from the context. each panelist moderated by a board member who will have the opportunity to pose questions. after words they can submit written and questions. but that is for the moderator to post to the panelist.

those agreed to be here today we have a strict timekeeper sitting in front so the panelists are encouraged to keep remarks brief so we have a discussion. a lunch break is between 12 and 1:15 p.m.. the transcript will be prepared and put on our web site within a week. comments from the members of public gar wellcome and may be submitted through the end of the year. finally thinking of the board's staff, shannon will send, traneight course men, so we will announce the first panel. >> thank you. we will attempt to root explore to live dishes to define privacy but with the

societal interest of the notion of privacy. and has remarked privacy is like bet check share cat -- the cheshire cat. we believe that concept is the ms. most commentators to agree that there are aspects of privacy that go back to the most ancient civilization trying several founding fathers but the concept of privacy is a receptacle for a conglomerate of interest of values and individuals. switch to varying degrees they are willing to balance with competing values such as national security. so privacy consist of a situation that courts and legislators or government officials will recognize the privacy interest and to

protect or not do that interest against the competing value. they will identify the individuals and the societal interest to discuss how far and under what conditions they should legitimately make claims to the particular interest. the format will be to talk initially seven minutes. and that group of willoughby ? fin i will question for 20 minutes and that is followed by another 20 minutes. then i hope there is some time left for the written questions that members of

the audience are invited to send to the front. you already has biographies of our panelists but i will identify them very briefly. we have the co-director for national security. >> thank you. i apologize in advance because i have a cold. but thanks for letting me participate in today's discussion and. there is one thing i have learned with my own involvement is privacy is difficult did you give a comprehensive list? i am not sure what i would add except for those who are

outside the mainstream in this country privacy meeting to be the government can be critical says judges religion and freedom and speech associations. we value all of those. so what does that mean for our analysis? it is interesting to sink about different definitions of privacy and it is helpful to show the range of definitions that are out there. but congress nor the courts should be in the business of attempting a granular definition of privacy for its importance. look have freedom of religion. courts don't probe what

religion is or why it is important not because it is obvious by any means. so what the court does it is a concept of religion that robb does of many different roles. accepted in the island rare circumstance and congress, the same approach. coming to information and privacy the best working concept that encompasses all of the important interests that privacy serves is control of the information. this concept avoid aids the why and that's how.

and to the state-controlled the papers they are secure enough. if not she is not. with that ramifications' to control mightily what one shares of with whom the to share with my mother or a close childhood friend but that does not mean i have chosen to share that with the entire world include the nsa. sure they could wrap to meet out that might chop said fred has the problem i did not know about and could be an informant but the downside risk that my

confidence and babied misplaced with the disclosures to everyone in the upper rhone is really what the third party doctrine is. second, you don't relinquish all control over information about your public activities but there is such a thing functionally speaking with the freedom of information act. there is a privacy section that if releasing it was done to a compromise privacy. the supreme court held in 1999 a rap sheet is coverage despite the fact that all the information is available by diligent combing of court

record so why is that so private? the court held while it was publicly available it was practically a skier it is such a concept that deserves of komen fourth amendment jurisprudence. but it is practically a skier. when the government uses drones or gps technology and that is a privacy violation. but we have heard with officials that that and is able collection of telephone

records because nobody looks at them unless they suspect the government tells you what privacy shed value. many people won't care the government collects but does not look the other people don't care if they look but does not prosecute but the point that they collect is where you have lost control. that loss of control itself produces harm and a vulnerability and causes people to change their behavior. in 2014 there was a poll showing 47 percent of respondents changed online behavior after those disclosures. another survey shows one add of six authors refrained from topics because they feared surveillance.

and attendance of those associations dropped because of the society to impoverish the social discourse to not put ideas out there. do i have time? i hear it said quite often in that young people don't care about privacy. end to share incredibly personal information with 622 friends but they don't. what day share and a number of people they share it with but they still control the sharing.

and my impression based on the unscientific survey of people in my life that i value control. the red card. i knew it was coming. i will stop there. [laughter] >> the professor from john marshall research professional. >> good morning. i'd like to make five points. the first is privacy is much more than hiding bad secrets. one of the common arguments that people make about privacy is they should not worry if they have nothing to hide. the based on the conception of privacy that is very narrow says hiding bad

things but when privacy is so much more than that it is not just one thing that many different things. it involves the responsible use of data and making sure it is kept accurate lee that they are responsible stewards. and they have a way the data is used it has nothing to do with nothing to hide. at with how the information is kept and collected and stored. now that ec privacy broadly we can move away from these views of privacy.

the second point is societal interests. and then seen as their balanced society wins out. at skews of securities side but privacy is not just an individual interest it does not affect the individual it is a societal interest to shape the society it doesn't just protect the individual for the individual sake but because we want a free society to free speech without worrying about negative consequences. the third point is the

corruption of personal data through surveillance of the information gathering could cause significant problems. it is not inherently bad but just as industrial activity causes pollution government surveillance and dated gathering can cause problems. . .

that we are talking about here. what kind of ability will the government have one that gathers all this information? what limits will there be on the information gathered and used? how long will the information be capped? in a free society, people are free to act as they want to act, as long as it is within the bounds of the law without having to justify themselves. you don't have to go and explain

their actions to a bureaucrat sitting in a room full of television monitors about what they are doing. they don't have to go and explain themselves when a computer is lights are blinking red because of something that they sat and it could be misinterpreted. people don't have to worry about that. they can act freely without having to worry about how suspicious their actions might look. that is a key component of freedom. the fourth one i would like to make is we can't adequately balance privacy and security without a reasonable amount of transparency. there is an overarching principle that this nation was founded upon. it is that we the people are the boss. the government is our agent. we can't evaluate what government officials are doing if we don't know what is going on. this doesn't mean there should be absolute transparency, but it does mean we need to know enough to be able to evaluate

government surveillance. because ultimately, the choice about the proper level of surveillance event the nsa to make. it is not the president to make. it is the people's choice. we can't forget that. it is the people's choice and the people must be given sufficient information to make that choice. my last point is the government must get buy-in from the people for a surveillance measures. without buy-in, people will start to take self-help measures, which is something we see happening now. companies provide people with ways to encrypt their data to protect it from snooping government entities. this is the market speaking. this is something people want. this is something people are going to die, in demand. why? why are people demanding this? because they have lost trust. the laws regulating surveillance or we can don't put advocate

accountability. this is via privacy protections aren't necessarily bad for security. in fact, they ensure that the people are comfortable, but there is adequate oversight and accountability for that surveillance and they are comfortable in the narrow, they have the information they need to continually evaluate what is going on and if they can evaluate what is going on in buy-in to what is going on, things will be a lot better when icons to balancing privacy and security. thank you. >> the founder of the red branch from a senior adviser the chertoff group and he was formerly deputy assistant secretary of policy at the department of homeland security. >> thank you. mr. chairman, members of the forthcoming appreciate the opportunity to speak with you

today. it is entirely appropriate for the board to begin the discussion in this technological age. in my judgment, it is essential. the reason for that is essentially one that puts me in some disagreement with my fellow panelists. i think there are conceptions of policy back in the 1970s are somewhat outdated and does survive the technological challenges we face. in 1973 thunderbird was a moralist call, but would not hold it out today as a state of automotive engineering and nor would i think we should address the state of privacy thinking. we needed the fact a test love for privacy today. what would that look like? there are many ways to answer that question and i think to answer it, you have to begin by thinking about what sort of value privacy is. here again, i find myself in some disagreement with other members on the panel and perhaps

members on the board. i do not think privacy is of value. i don't think it is akin to religion. it is not an inherent human right or the product is the natural law. brother and my judgment, privacy is an inherently instrumental value, one that acts in the service of other societal values. it is a utilitarian value that derives its work only in so far in my judgment as fosters other social gains. privacy for its own sake is just an assertion of autonomy from society. it is a valuable insofar as it advances other object is. but may put some salt on not. problem is buried in the word privacy or many different social values. too many to catalog many to catalogue though the chairman did a good job of trying to starve. for example, we often see in the discussion here privacy is enhancing our freedom from government on summation.

that is probably these most salient to let the board does, but it also enables democracy. that is why we keep the ballot private. it fosters personal morality. that is why we keep the confessional private. tiresias about restraining government misbehavior, which is why we see privacy powers in the fourth amendment and other procedural limitations on government action, another way privacy is relevant to this board. it is also sometimes about transparency in the sense we have privacy rules so i know what you know about me. it can be about control, controlling my own image and sometimes about simply shane is one ground of privacy is enabling me to keep in the world and say enough about a kid of which there are too many i fear. what is important to note is in all these instances, the value we are protecting that underlies privacy is different from the privacy itself and that in turn suggests to me the way to think

about privacy is to think about what operational activities would protect the underlying value most. it means we need to go to a micro level to understand in general the nuance that arises from a particular interest of the core privacy we are talking about. for example, we protect the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. why? because we need to foster the discussion between a client and an attorney. that is something we feel so strongly about that the instances in which we permit a privacy to be violated are few and far between and they come only with the highest level of judicial scrutiny. a fourth amendment itself reflects a similar utilitarian value of the security of our persons, places and things against intrusion. once again, we impose a high bar of probable cause requirement and a strong independent outside

adjudicator, a judge issuing a warrant. those aren't the only mechanisms by which we can protect privacy. we have a series of administrated prophecies that are often adequate to protect and restrain government observation. they are embedded in many of the internal reviews that are very common in the i see, intelligence community that you spend your time reviewing. they are common in virtually every to tuition of government that we have at least at the federal level or rethink administrative review internal oversight, inspectors general, intelligence committee oversight, ultimate administrative mechanisms. what does that mean for some of the things you think about? will shoot programs you write about to express something there.

the 215 program is one that directly impacts issues of government abuse or potential abuse because of the pervasiveness of the collection that underwent what was fair. it strikes me that sort of pervasive collection is one that would require a strong independent review because of the comprehensiveness of the dvd. by contrast, the 702 program, which seems from what i've read from the outside from your reports more narrowly focused is one in which whatever mechanism corrections are necessary less likely of inadvertent abuses there. so if you press on what is being protected, you get a sense of a better way to protect it. at me say one brief word more about transparency. i completely agree with others on the tampa transparency is essential to control concepts of misconduct. the critical question is what type of transparency? for me again, this requires us

to ask what transparency is for. it is the ground of oversight and audit. transparency is just voyeurism. absolute transparency can't be squared with the need for secrecy and operation broke ran. i sometimes think some calls for transparency though i hasten to say not by any other panel on the board barcoded efforts to discontinue surveillance pro grants altogether. the truth that we believe in absolute transparency we got a long way to view that democracies can't have secrets, a few which i think is untenable in the modern world. with my last 30 seconds, let me offer one last thought about the role of the board in the multivariate nature of privacy. because i think privacy is many things in as many applications in different contexts, i also think the most appropriate ground for making judgments about privacy is not in boards or judiciary, but the most representative bodies we have

available to us. i realize that is perhaps landing rather heavily on the body not held in the highest regard at this time, but nonetheless, that is the mechanism and democracy for accumulating diverse preferences, waiting in the balance in reaching judgment for broader societal interest. thank you. my apologies. [inaudible] -- of princeton. the founder for print and information technology. i think that will give us a somewhat different lines through which to do privacy. >> thanks for the opportunity to testify. too bad like to offer a perspective as a computer scientist, changing data practices and how they affect how we think about projects. we can think of today's data practices in terms of the three stage pipeline. first, collect data.

second, merge data items in third analyzed facts about people. the first stages collection. in our daily lives we disclose information direct to people and organizations. even when we're not disclosing information explicitly, more and more of what we do online and off is and off is recorded in online services attach unique identifiers to those recordings, which are used to link them later. the second stage of the pipeline merges the data. if two data files can be determined to correspond to the same person before example because they contain the same unique identifier, those files can be merged. merging can create an avalanche effect because merged files can be a more precise information about identity and behavior and that precision in turn allows for the emerging. one file might contain detailed information about behavior and another might contain precise

identity information. version those files links behavior and identity together. the third stage of the pipeline uses big data methods such as predictive analytics to infer facts about people. one famous example is when the retailer targets products such as skin motion to infer pregnancy. today the machine learning methods often enable sensitive information to be inferred from seemingly less sensitive data. differences also have another latch effect because each inference becomes a data point to be used in making further inferences. predictive analytics are most effective when many positive and negative examples are available. for example, target use many examples of pregnant and non-pregnant women to build its predictive model. by contrast, the predictive model to identify terrorists from every day behavior of data would expect much less success because there are few examples of known terrorists in the u.s. population. without technical background, i

may discuss the implications for privacy. first consequences of collecting data items can be difficult to predict if an item doesn't seem to convey identifying information and events the content seems harmless, the collection could substantial downstream effects. we have to account for the mistake affected which isolated in the unremarkable data items combine to paint a vivid and specific pitcher. one of the main lessons of technical scholarship on privacy is the power of the mosaic effect. to understand what follows from collecting item, we could think about how it can be merged with other available data and how the data can in turn be used to infer information about people. we have to take into account the avalanche effect emerging on inference. for example, the information the holder a certain loyalty card account number purchase as skin motion on a certain date might turn out to be a key fact the moxie and friends that a particular identify a woman

mpeg. the data were collected and analyzed has been shown to enable predictions about social status, affiliation, employment, health and personality. the second implication is the data handling systems have gotten much more complicated, especially in emerging analysis phases after collection. the sheer complexity makes it difficult to understand to predict and to control how they behave. even the people who build and run these systems often fail to understand how they work in practice and this leads to unpleasant surprises such as failures are data breaches. complexity frustrates oversight in compliance and makes failure more likely. despite our best intentions, organizations often find themselves out of compliance with their own policies and obligations. complex systems often fail to perform the desired. complex rules may compliance more difficult.

it's sometimes argued we should invade and control and focus only on regulating use. limits on his offer more flexibility and precision in erie 10 sometimes impact us. collection has important advantages to. it is easier to comply with the world that limits collection than one that allows collection and puts elaborate limits on usage afterwards. collection limits make oversight and enforcement easier. limiting collection can manage agencies to develop innovative approaches that meet their analytics means for collecting less information. the third implication is the synergy between commercial and government data practices. as an example, commercial entities put identifiers into most website access. nice job for collecting graphics can use identifiers to link a user's activity across different time in all my insides in an eavesdropper can connect activities to identifying information. research shows that the user

fixes locations and devices, any stripe are exploiting identifiers can reconstruct 60% to 75% of what a user does online and can usually link the data. my final point is technology offers many options beyond most obvious technological approach of collecting all the data aggregating a single large data center and analyzing later. here i think paul's analogy to the 1973 thunderbird is a good one. we would no longer expected safety technologies technologies available on that vehicle. nowadays we expect airbags and antilock brakes and we expect the latest technology to be used to make the technology safer and reduce risk and we should ask for the same when it comes to privacy. we should ask agencies use advanced technology to limit how much information they collect use cryptography to limit undesirable flows of information. the larger literature data analysis and methods.

determining whether collection of data is truly necessary data retention is needed and what can be inferred from an analysis, these are deeply technical questions. in the same way the board asks probing legal and policy questions of the agencies you over eat, i hope you got capacity to rest equally probing tech go questions. legal and policy oversight are most effective when combined with sophisticated accurate technical analysis in many independent experts and groups are able and willing to help build the capacity. thank you for your time and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. for the next 20 minutes or so, i am going to pose some questions to the members of the panel. i will post them to a particular member and is one of the other members have sent a very cogent, then feel free. let me start with you.

our constitution in trying certain aspects of privacy in the fourth amendment acuity, papers from unreasonable search and seizure and protection to general warren. are there other aspects of privacy that the community leads with the recognition and oversight or can they all be in combest within the balance of the constitution? what are the ones you think ought to be specific, recognized? the lecture, to starboard the obvious come in the amendment applies only to the government. it's not a restriction on private parties and there's absolutely a place for regulation of private entities and how they control, acquiring

control people's information because the market doesn't always do a great job and although it does a great job of other things. we certainly know people are not 100% satisfied with the privacy protections that have been provided in the private sector and the private sector in another safe also said the fourth amendment by deserving of regulation. >> another question directly. we hear an awful lot about the commercial opposition in so much personal information on what they do with it. don't worry so much about the government than some of the private, google communications, the internet has great masses of data. do you think that make the significant difference in the risk, the privacy that are displayed by so much personal information by the government

and the private entities or is it too big for >> i do think there's a difference. i think there remains a different search for private companies do not have the same course of power over the individual the government has an private companies and private entities don't have the same motivations to persecute people based on ideology or religion. these are things we've seen in the history of the country unfortunately. we have seen people targeted for surveillance because they were political enemies of the reigning administration. what i would say is private entities have neither the ability nor the motive to throw people in jail on pretext because they are politically opposed to the current administration. that said, i think the company

is, the line between big companies in this country and governance is getting dinner and dinner and certainly companies might have some political axes to grind with respect to the work force and they certainly have access to people's information. i am not in the least bit unconcerned with the private accumulation of information, but i remain more concerned with privacy vis-à-vis the government. >> let me try professor solove. you write in an article called conceptualizing privacy that you went into a little bit or 16 kinds of activities that represent privacy with privacy is filed under all defined too broadly and they're all defined too narrowly. you concluded i think if i've read it correctly, that we should concentrate on specific

types of destruction for those centuries and what should be done about that. can you apply that kind of framework to the kind of collection protection that we need a national security data and surveillance programs in collection processing i densification, secondary use and the other things you talk about in your article quite >> s. actually in what i wrote to talk about privacy not just been one just been wanting and having a common denominator. being a pool of common characteristics and actually applying to what i laid out was a taxonomy of privacy about various types of problems and i wanted to focus on the problems or areas where certain activities caused disruption. they have caused problems when we want to mitigate those problems. that is where we want to step in and say we should regulate this,

do something about this. we should address these problems. it does immediate duties that cause them are bad, but it does mean they do cause problems we need to address. some of these problems that relate to government data gathering include aggregation that you can take a lot of different pieces of data, each one being particularly innocuous, not saying a whole lot about somebody. when you combine them together, you can learn new facts about somebody. this is what data mining was all about and data analytics. the whole becomes greater than the parts. it starts to create a mosaic, a portrait of somebody. this then leads to the revelation of information that someone might not have asked that did or wanted when they gave out little pieces of information here and there and i think this causes a problem and disrupt people's privacy expectations. it can lead to knowledge of information that people don't want to expose her that society

might not want exposed. i think we need to address that problem and often times conceptions of privacy will ignore aggregation because the information on what different gathered from public information here there's no privacy. i don't think that's true. we really want to look at what the problems are. another aspect of the problem i call solution, which is the fact that people lack an ability in a lot of cases to have any say in how the information might be used against them. any right to correct that information or make sure it's accurate. that is a key component of a lot of privacy laws is the right for people to make sure the proper decisions are made about them based upon their information. i can't go through all 16. i can have some other honest

identification, the fact this involves linking a body of data, what i call a digital dossier to a particular individual by identifying them, you are actually connecting them today to that then can be used to make decisions about their lives. some decisions could be good, but some could be harmful to an individual. security is another issue i see is related in part of my taxonomy and privacy and that is keeping data secure. when data is then kept secure, it creates risks and vulnerabilities of people that it does tend to a lot of harm if in fact the data is leaked improperly that happens all the time and we are all at risk what all this data is gathered together in a big repository. there are a lot of other things, but i will stop here in the interest of time. these are just some of the ways

that taxonomy addresses this problem. i think it is in port and to think that the overarching point is don't start with some platonic concept of privacy and see what it then and what doesn't. it is better to look at is in the bottom up and say where the problems? what are the problems and harms caused by these activities and how do we address those? >> i would agree with everything that dan said, but i would also say also look at what the benefit are. presidents report on big data looked at the increase in the volume velocity and variety of data and championed the idea that large-scale data aggregation creates ubiquitous, serendipitous new knowledge that is of value to society as well. it brings up that harm, but also benefits and that is why i see it as a kind of cost-benefit utilitarian analysis.

>> okay. go ahead. the mac can i say one thing quickly about utilitarian billy, not a human right. it is listed in other treaties and protocols that the united states has fine been housed the force of customary international law. so whatever one's personal feelings about that, i don't think this board has the latitude to decide that all of these treaties we signed declaring it as a human right are our voice. >> defining what is then the problems. >> may i make one small point. that is i totally agree about the benefits of big data and use of these things. i think off in the balance is wrong to cast between take the benefits and weighed against the harms because protecting privacy doesn't mean getting rid of big internet are not engaging in

surveillance. it allows searches and surveillance for example. they require certain oversight. we need to look at where balance enough of the benefits of big data against privacy. we need to look to what extent do oversight accountability in these protections on a pier to what extent do they diminish some of those benefits? that diminishment is what gets put on the scale against privacy. not all of big date of benefits. if we weigh about appropriately, we get a better balance. >> we don't get these when they come to the fourth amendment. the bounce has been struck. we can't say we want to search people's houses. we have a really good reason. we don't have a warrant, but we have a really good reason. ..

>> >> it isn't just the

residual but what the open society needs. for people developing that they feel free to have relationships but to reconcile that aspect of the democratic open society and tell somebody is suffering tangible harm. >> i'd see it as irreconcilable in here and

see to the value. to no longer fear the collection because of lack of matters consequence would have gone away. to my knowledge the way to support the underlying democratic spier is to build

the of oversight of the board in the way that reinsurers society to drive down both types. to drive down the air raid as much as possible to engender their confidence to seize them lee what happens when it is not maintained.

and we see the same things in response -- in respect of the sturgeon disclosures as well. but that is the right way to look at how to fix the error correction mechanism. >> one thing that you brought up earlier that has come up in some of the past reports. en to at what stage it is it the independent review of government with the internal auditing? to ensure that there is this lovell of trust -- low of trust?

and was what you have suggested on that trespassing aspect. >> but i would say that it depends on the nature of what you anticipate. i will give two examples. on one side we have the current tsa inspection program at the airport. fairly significant error rate but on the other hand, a comparatively modest intrusion and i say that knowing it is a large intrusion compared to the coercive nature but in that

instance we seem reasonably happy of the methodology because individual liberty is not at issue are long time confinement. been by contrast that independent review is essential when the brigade is at stake, one of the strangest things i seem privacy debates today like that t.s. a screening and we look at the government database you cannot get a job in the transportation industry with the record e. been it has errors because of that identity card. we have it backwards a

little with the independent review. so in that context i think anytime there is the adverse consequences where there is room for a judicial intervention that is why i like what the president has done for reasonable suspicion and trigger because that is the point at which the individual comes out and remind yourself as adverse consequences and that is a transition point. >> talk about your

dependency for governments to build a large data base. there are inherent risks to privacy as they get larger and larger. that is my basic question. what are the principles that you recommend with the increasing use of technology? all the way from collection and with the concepts to maximize that concerns over security.

>> the first principle would be to try to look beyond most fruit force technical approach that is collect all the data that might be useful to retain it all in a single large data center. the more data you have the more you collect. and with the adverse consequences the more of the target it is. for use or breach. but first to fit the practices to the specific need in terms of one analysis it is that you know, you need to do to figure out which data you can collect to structure the analysis while holding the

data separately and reprocessing or minimizing the data first. there is a growing awareness -- array of weapons that do this. this becomes a technical problem. so to insist that work be done. >> who should do that? >> in my view if a government agency wants to argue they have a need to collect and use certain data and then they should justify the technical practices they are using the way they organize its.

but those that would argue for the collection of data should be prepared to discuss these issues an offer a technical justification. when it comes to private parties that is a more complicated discussion. that the best practice ought to be to do that as well that the market mechanism that drives the relationship is very different. >> though last question i will throw out that several of you have talked about the element of control but then others have written it cannot be the absolute value it has to be balanced.

so if ever betty surprise or controls that piece of information so what kinds of principles would you apply to recognize some balance that even with that fourth amendment with that clause? >> but with the vast majority of circumstances it did balance that to give us the override to show probable cause of criminal

activity. the supreme court has recognized some that are controversial. we do have to follow the cases to say the search was reasonable even though there was no warrant. but you have to get a warrant based on the other

point i would make it is too often a trump card. and the cato institute made an excellent point* that when you look at courts with national security they tend to be large over that person's particular information that is not the right comparison you weigh that against the incremental threat to national security or address national security at large against the values privacy services society. we talk about these as being

in competition to say it is more effective than dragnets surveillance. but to be fair and public balancing. >> thank you. now we will go down the line. >> thinking about the issues of control is important to recognize the way people try to reassert control the name referring specifically to self-help measures to limit the flows of information as well as strategic behavior that they avoided doing certain things to have a different kind of image. and if you do that

utilitarian balancing take into account the ways in which resources are spent and are wasted in the arms race between self-help and strategic behavior on the one hand or to overcome that on the other side. just ask a teenager about there on-line use what you hear is the laboratory of technical countermeasures and strategic behavior. [laughter] >> i think your point is well taken which is to say fundamentally it is at odds with the government collection of information and whether for the purpose of imposing attacks under the irs or law enforcement and national security.

it is one that many would if billions in icy no reason to do discount that at all. but if that is the touchstone of privacy then you put that in opposition to affect a government action where people may want to control of all the friends i have your second amendment people the government should not collect information about gun ownership that is the good position to have but not one that we accept as society. then the last point, when i was last in government the% of searches conducted without warrants was quite high. near 50 percent.

i'd and of that has changed. but many if not most typical interactions with law-enforcement are adjudicated on the reasonable standard rather than the eight standing -- exact standard. that i seem to recall it is not always up for judicial review. >> a few quick points. even if you cannot always give people total control there are partial things you can give them control. but the uses and gathering of the information is under control. with the appropriate oversight and accountability and controls. on the first amendment --

the fourth amendment it is wrong with the interpretations which are flawed of the exceptions that the fourth amendment is not even applied at all. in this is how we get the third party doctrine that i'd take the fourth amendment to weigh to any kind of approach. and this is the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures it doesn't say privacy but six your. -- secure but anytime the government is engaging in searches and surveillance

surveillance, it is unreasonable if it is problem setter not adequately dealt with with oversight and accountability with the fourth amendment is trying to impose or the appropriate oversight to make sure the judicial body looks at what the government wants to do to evaluate. it is very important to conduct the balance between privacy and security appropriately. i think there should be a balance that we need to balance correctly. to not skew the balance by overweighing the security interest. it is the marginal difference between a security interest without oversight and accountability and that with oversight and

accountability. and all branches should play a role. congress in the 1970's did an extensive review of intelligence agencies to produce a public report about that. congress has not done anything like that sense but it should. judiciary has a role to play. and the people ultimately are the key to this to have a role to play. >> now we have 20 minutes of questioning from my fellow board members. >> liza goitein with the question with the expectation of privacy and the way that people rely on

practical obscurity because it is too complex or burdensome to gather information that it is said period beyond that, that court file that is accessible in public. so how should we look at privacy issues win public databases are so readily available? and the line between government and commercial database is not always great and they can access that? had to look at privacy when information is called their but it is combined into a mosaic with a detailed profile? so what is the catch of the 2014 version? i am happy to go down the

line. >>. >> time wisely only have about five minutes keep your answers relatively brief. >> i think right now the mosaics very that we see compared to the jones case are looking at this question. i cannot answer in a few seconds but when we combine various pieces of data what are the implications of that? we'll is the combining of that data revealed new information to create certain problems that harm people? that is when we want to step in. >> the first point is practical obscurity itself is a post industrial concept

there was none in the 1200's it was limited to who you knew and they knew everything about you. but that a system where they talk to each other. so with dancing security is of value it is something that we value more now the mosaic israel to deny that is to deny the sign and so it strikes me that the most likely points of intervention are at the aggregation of data. but the databases are so big it is impossible to stop unless you stop google. you will have big government collection so it has to be

choosing between government. >> i agree most of what has been said without mosaics very and another way to look at it is the information that is gathered by the government is in fact, information using would be in a person's control and they would not have access to but i don't agree that the point of collection is a moot point trick is the mere fact that google and facebook has all this information does not mean the government has said and there are burgeoning technologies that is not decided and how the government can deploy that so there is plenty of room to regulate that collection days of the reasons we talked about earlier and what privacy means to people.

that is with the privacy interest. >> along with what the other panelists have said i point out that much of the information that is in the corporate database it was observed rather than disclosed. other is not always consent or it is very thin from the person the data it is about. i still thank you can always infer there is an awareness from the fact information is in the corporate database that it might go to the government to be used. >> therefore should the government not collect that information? >> but to make a legal opinion come i am not a

lawyer but as a policy matter i get nervous when it appears there is a legal fiction that something has happened. so a fiction of consent that it does not exist are troubling. >> thanks for being here first of all,. going back to the notion of control, you went to the fourth amendment concept. ion interested is the notion of control is more the individual participation concept can apply in the national security surveillance context. so that individuals may say

i a consent to being surveiled by that nsa or fbi then you could not have surveillance programs. this is on top of the fourth amendment baseline with additional restrictions. can that apply in the national security context? >> i think it can apply but i am pausing because i think of the premise of the question. it is not the case to not have a surveillance program with consent but the government can obtain your information with a war it. >> that we are beyond the fourth amendment now. now with individual participation and the reason i asked is when does an essay published the report

that they were applying it then said that concept does not apply so we will not. i am wondering if it is just not the right framework to apply in this context? the individual participation in thing just doesn't apply so we look for another framework or standard? >> i would like to think about that question i have some thoughts and will answer with my testimony. >> i have a thought. i think that model has some flaws in people don't read the privacy policies. i don't think just providing a notice is effective. we do need to think about what works in the context. and in certain cases we may want individuals to play a