>> we are trying very hard to conclude. [inaudible conversations] >> oh, yes sir. he has been a part of communications. as i have told you from the very beginning, i agree about this.

and we cannot regulate the international affairs. and now frankly we are working on behalf of days. we have tried our best to facilitate communications. >> thank you. i just want to take note. your expectations that the transpacific partnership will happen this year.

>> professor? [laughter] [laughter] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> secondly on-base, did i understand you correctly to say and i would hope and expect that this will be completed and ratified before the end of the obama administration and i guess that my question related to that is since next year is obviously a very political year in the united states, if it cannot be

ratified by the end of the administration and this administration, do you think it is important to have it completed by the end of the administration? and then have a completed agreement, up in the next administration? [inaudible] >> and congress, if that can be approved. in the way that this will conclude in september. it is part of this.

[inaudible] and it can be concluded by congress. and indeed it is part of the debate [inaudible] and we will conclude this, that is already part of it. so that is the situation. >> very good. i'm going to ask the forgiveness of the audience. we are at 3:00 o'clock, i mean 4:00 o'clock, and we promised you promptly that we would adjourn because you have other

commitments and so let me just express the appreciation to you on behalf of everyone. i must say that your can do and positive, happy warrior outlook is inspirational and we have high regard for you as one committed to a highly independent and very healthy bilateral relationship. so we thank you very much for being here, zhu guangyao. it has been our pleasure. >> thank you. >> coming up on c-span2, our discussion on the state of working women in the united states and then they look at government surveillance and technology. then china's vice finance minister talking about the impact of the country's economy on the world.

>> next the national partnership for women and families discusses issues related to women, including paycheck equality family leave, and pregnancy discrimination. from "washington journal", this is 55 minutes. >> we have a roundtable this morning on the state of working women in the united states. our guest is vicki shabo, vice president of the national partnership for women and families. thank you for joining us thank you for having me. >> we also say good morning to veronique de rugy. thank you for being with us as well. >> thank you for having me. >> when we have that broad topic, the state of women in the u.s. on the what is the most important issue out there to you >> i think that that the thing i would like to start with an emphasized his how good the women have it as opposed to the last 60 years, a lot of the

conversation we were having on this issue tends to treat the problems as if we have this and i think it is really worth pointing to it at higher rates of graduation of women versus men, more than ever i think a lot of women enjoy flexibility at work. and i think it's not so much about gender as it is about the state of the economy and there are times when men face unemployment and recovery and lower wages and i don't know that it's quite specific with the bigger issue that i see on the labor market. >> there has been incredible progress to women over the past 50 years. but i don't think that we have

come far enough. and we just sent a report out this week showing that women still in 78% of what men are earning and those are women that are working full-time year round we are working full-time year-round 56 cents for latina women and some others at 71 cents. and both of those are full-time in year-round education level women's opportunities have progressed from this includes kinds of flexibility policies and still underneath it all there is still some determination. >> we have some numbers on the bottom of the screen.

we have lines for republicans and democrats and independents and we have plenty of time to talk things through and i wanted to follow up on some of the numbers that was put out and the president uses a number, similar to 77% and so what do you make of that figure? >> i think it's a misleading figure that has been widely debunked by economists on both sides of the aisle that have looked at it and even "the washington post" and glenn kessler and others. and even the economist and economic advisers they all acknowledge that the problem of that figure is that it tends to indicate that women that work in

the same position come in the same number of hours they are paid much less what economists have found is that when you control the number of hours worked, when you control for whether women work and have children and have taken a lot of time off that gap almost disappears. life choices made by men and women in the labor department show what we have called full-time and it's not exactly the same thing and then 7.75 hours. so we have to be careful and there is a wide discrimination between the women and men doing exactly the same thing, having

the same level of experiences. >> i am very glad that you brought all of that up. >> i think the president's figure is somewhere around here when we have made a lot of progress. and that is right, but that is not is looking at the jobs or the exact number of hours or a couple of hours last. but what we see is that there are all these factors at play and there is a reason that i bring up wage policies. and that is why we have this and it constrains how women are able to exist in the workplace and so

the number that exists that cannot be explained is still between seven and 10% and that 70% wage gap started off for college dedicated women and men. >> we have our first caller, please, please go ahead. >> hello, i would like to direct this question to vicki and anyone else who has information please help out. when i am working we gave the statistics out a little bit earlier on. i assumed that asians probably

make equal or average than full-time workers, where do african-american men and latino men matchup statistically because i think that if you look at them individually or separately you will see that it's a majority of them soaring above everyone else's and men of color. and so do you know where i can find those statistics out. >> i am so glad you asked the question. when we are comparing this that is because you are right, there is a wage gap is well between white men and african-american men and latino men as well. >> that is one of the things that we have pointed out it is

indeed comparing things that almost shouldn't be compared. if you really want to compare people were making this with this number for black women and hispanics compared to them because it is a weird choice, it's bigger than it should be. >> there are concerns about a lot of evidence. a lot of them have been turning into a class of wages and these are issues that we need to consider. >> thank you for calling elizabeth, good morning. >> i wonder why why some people

think that just because a man is married and has kids that he needs a bigger waves than a woman. >> if i could just start i don't think that anyone thinks this. i think that what the data shows is one of the reasons why men may make more money than women is because they are overly represented in professions that are high risk and very intense and hours as opposed to women and it is true that women are still the ones that take care of their children and they are the ones taking maternity leave they want requiring flexibility or meeting flexibility.

so it's not that men should have higher wages but it is a function of the professional choices that are made. >> so i think that choices are a little bit of the debate and that has a lot to do with these factors that we were talking about and that if we had those we would be in a better place with more equal society. it's very well-documented when it comes to comparing full-time workers and it's interesting. and i went and spoke about this and the wage gap between both of

those. >> a little bit of perspective from the joint economic committee, this is on the democratic side two thirds of families rely on income they generally contribute about 40% of the household income and among 38% of married couples. we have jerome on the line. >> over the last six years you could say the same thing about race relations. but the news proves that differently. women are far more even today, far more less likely to have say over their bodies, they are losing their rights daily, the

power shift is apparent to anyone who is paying attention that women are beginning to step up and say that we have had enough and we are doing this for others. that is why would like to say that women are still behind and i think that sometimes the dogs are smarter than we are. >> thank you for calling. >> if women think that they are behind. women face a lot of difficulty it's a lot to juggle and it's hard to juggle work. and i think that they are very capable of stepping up for themselves and changing the culture. we need to commend this and we

really need to talk about how this is not the way we want to live in we are going to change things and we have made tremendous progress. and again does that mean we can go home and did not care and never talk about it? absolutely not. do not knowledge in and trying to pretend that women today are still in a state of complete oppression where their rights are curtailed in the u.s. i think it is an understatement. >> this for a couple more minutes, can you remind us of the history of equal pay act? when did it come about and what was it designed to do and what is it designed to do? >> the equal pay act was signed by john kennedy.

and they basically said that women should be paid equally to men based upon skills and responsibilities and experience. and that was an incredible first step. and so the historic first step and there are a couple of issues still. one is it's pretty easy for employers to discriminate and pay women and men different amounts based upon business necessities. the second issue is that the remedies aren't as good as some of the latest under title vii which is equal opportunity. so we also need to create policies whereby women or nobody where people are not retaliated against for simply sharing this information. and often we hear about people

like lilly ledbetter but they did not have the right work place setting to talk about it many face retaliation for talking about her for talking about it. >> some of the details that you have touched on related to job performance, not gender it strengthens remedy is, pay discriminations, it establishes training programs. where is that legislation right now with congress? >> knew he can speak more to this because i haven't followed step-by-step where the legislation is. >> where do you think about this

and updating the older law. >> i think that we are fighting a battle with misguided data. we have established that women tend to work fewer hours they work the same amount of time women doing the same thing should be paid the same but the reality is having a flexible labor market and a growing economy where they have to compete for employees and i'm very concerned about having these regulations because they may make them more expensive and less desirable. i think that we have to be very careful, all of the situations mean that it's going to be

harder than there are trade-offs with everything. >> good morning to you. >> hello, how are you. >> i'm wow, how are you. >> pretty good. i would like to talk about and i don't hear very often when they talk about day care and health with day care i have a family member who is 27 years old and what they give him his respite care, he gets 15 hours a week where he can go out with a person out into society. and the rest of the time he is at home or with the other family members went to the store and everything. one week is 168 hours minus 15

and how would you like to spend [inaudible] with your loved ones. they keep decreasing it. and he had companionship and respite and they said that they had to do things separately like you could do this but you have to, you know the caretaker had to be you know it was separated. and you could go out or stay home depending on how they could go out.

they said okay, we will combine them, you can use that time, it was 30 hours total but they never change the hours come and they said okay, they kept it at 15 and i'm just wondering how are they still doing this so people can go out to work. my family member would love to work. >> it especially resounds with the supports that we need and one of the interesting things that we have really been looking at a lot of the caregiving crisis in this country both in terms of the way that caregivers are paid in the professionalization of this industry and there are a lot of people talking about this and we

also need to deal with those professions with family members that have these conditions and women in particular are being forced to leave the workforce until we need to be better about recognizing the changing demographics around work and care and that includes to the workforce. >> there is a town hall, we have talked about it as we have

triple the tax credit. >> which would translate to potentially an additional $900 per year. and that is going to make a big difference in a lot of families. at the federal level there should be one of our top budget priorities and you know it's in everyone's interest to make sure that our kids, and i say our kids because the one thing i really believe is that even if you're single and your kids are grown or if they are like mine that will go to soon and think that i'm boring and they don't want to hang out with us as much as they used to your kid is an important person to me as well and that is not out of charity

but because your child, if he is doing well, that means he is paying taxes and contributing to society and that is a good investment for me. >> what do you make of what he had to say? >> i have some reluctance but this is a better solution than mandating child care benefits in the workplace because that could really have bigger implications and negative consequences for women. that being said, i will say that we only talked about extending the tax credits and we are not actually addressing some real

issues and married women face. so there is a serious marriage tax penalty with earners. 72% make significantly less than their husband or less than or then. .. singles. the last dollar you earn of your smaller weight is taxed at the highest tax rates of your husband. so that means if you are a woman who wants to work, and if you don't make that much money, you have a tremendous disincentive to work because the tax rates you will face is quite significant, compared to a single woman who will face -- these have implications and if we could address this, it could

leave more cash with women and their families to take care of childcare without causing a further burden. host: vicki shabo? guest: taxes are not my area of expertise, but families have real expenses. families have to struggle to meet -- make and meet. -- make ends meet. when they have a parent who needs care, when they come of themselves, are ill. we have to do a better job in this country off of getting a policy to reflect the very real needs are workers have. we need to find ways for them to do both. host: did you want to add something to echo guest: i just wanted to add one thing. the other thing we are not addressing is that if we had more immigration in this country, it would help women. because -- and it would help, obviously, the woman who lives

abroad and wants to come and live and work in the united dates. but one of the things that the economic literature shows is that women especially low -- low income women benefit tremendously from immigration because that makes available more childcare options, more housework options. another thing is lifting a lot of the regulations that get in the way of more people, more women or men, for that matter, entering the childcare business. right now, there is a lot of occupational licensing. you have to have -- and requirements that -- increase the barrier democratic caller. married. caller: good morning.

i just want to ask a question about something, so far i have not heard anyone address. that is, i would like to know how pay disparity impacts women after retirement. in other words, if the taxpayer supplementing women in retirement didn't earn as much as men -- i never hear anybody adjusting that particular problem. thank you. host: vicki shabo? guest: that is a fantastic question. i agree with you, it is a piece of the debate that is probably not talked about enough. the pay gap, the disparities that women are facing over a lifetime to hundreds of thousands -- adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. it means that women are more dependent on men, on social security, but because they are

taking time out of the workforce, their benefits may not be as high. it is why we need policies that we know help to keep women stay connected to the workforce. we know when newmont's take paper leave, they are more likely to come back to work, earn higher wages over time, and come back to the same employer would save them and training costs. and it allows for women and men to save for retirement and be paying into the tax system, so we all have more to benefit. win-win. host: before we go back to calls, i want to give your chance, vicki shabo, to respond to the last point on immigration. guest: one of the critical things we need to do, if we are

going to create more eldercare jobs where there are often low-paying jobs with few protections. we can't just create a series of new workers who do not have wages or benefits for protection, because then we end up with more reliant on the social safety net and more and equality rather than less. we need to raise wages for everyone and protections to allow for people to be responsible to take individual responsibility. we need to create a society that is working for everybody and not just a few. host: john is calling from poughkeepsie, new york. caller: iwatch these lawyers organizations that are greatly funded. when they come up with their conclusions, they seem like pre-drawn conclusions, it

is easy to take numbers and twist and turn them, but there has been discrepancy and pay and our society for years. it is not something that was planned. to think the you will going correct all the inequalities in our society, it is never going to happen. to say that men -- to pit men and women against one another, i don't understand. it seems like there is anger and hatred. that is the bottom line here. it doesn't seem like you're trying to solve the problem and make society any better, it seems like oh, we are getting this grenade is a against. -- discriminated against. what about discrimination and sports? have you looked at who is getting more money? do you see that the wnba, woman's association, makes less

money than men. do you really want to pick everyone against each other? or do you think there is a better solution? somehow, this is not a conspiracy. i think -- if i have a business and i want to hire somebody, i don't say, i will hire a man because i think he can do a better job. i may decide that will make a do a better job, but it is my decision and not yours. host: thank you for calling. guest: i agree with you. i think there's a lot of risk in pitting men against women or perpetrating the idea that women are highly discriminated against. again, a lot of evidence. are there people willing to discriminate? yes there are, but that is far from being the majority. i think the solution for all of us is that we need a dynamic economy and we have to be extremely careful and warned

people against mandated rage restriction, mandated increase in wages. that will slow down the economy. we tend to forget in this whole debate that businesses in order to be able to hire women or men for that matter, and men and women are in this together most of the time. in order to be able to hire people, they need to sell their stocks and be in an environment that allows businesses to prosper. creating more barriers in the marketplace is not a solution. i agree with vicki, women need more flexibility. they need more flexibility because of life choices that they make and because they are primarily, and by choice, responsible -- they want to

raise their children. the best way to allow them to come in and out of the market without too much of structure and is by having a flexible labor market and not by implementing very rigid barriers that backfire and hurt the most. guest: a couple of things there. one of the great myths, i think, is that greater regulation leads to lower wages do we have a number of experiments. there have been a number of cities and states putting in paid sick days. we know in places like san francisco, the state of connecticut, here in washington dc seattle, those laws have had no negative impact on job growth or creation. in fact, industries that have been most successful, labor and

hospitality, those have increased. labor and hospitality jobs in connecticut have increased at a higher rate than they did before. one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is to provide people the wages and stability that they need. just a quick antidote -- i was at the white house yesterday for a "champions of change" event that the president held. there was a fantastic woman that had a business in iowa. she talked about how she took over her father's business and realize that women on the payroll were being paid less then men and to the step to equalize pay rates, which allow for people working for her to buy houses, pay off their debt, pay for childcare. it has had a stimulating effect in the community. the mandates are not having

negative implications. guest: i would like to dispute that the data on the mandate on the labor force -- i think work on these issues by an m.i.t. professor, a respected economist, his work has shown that it has impacted starting wages of women. that being said, i think it is wonderful if businesses, who find that there is some discrepancy, that they could be serving better, that they could benefit by giving much more to their women employees because some of them are much better helping them will also benefit male employees. i fully support -- i just think

it is wonderful to hear stories like this that disprove the idea that business owners are horrible people who would do anything to their employees and order to make a buck. i think it is a sign of the great country we live in. host: i want to get jake in from hampton, georgia. a republican. caller: good morning. i feel like everybody should have an equal opportunity to do a job. i just wanted to get y'all to weigh in on the rise of part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs and if that has any effect on the bigger picture of things, like the economy. just why did your opinion on that. guest: a great question.

i think one of the ways that we see in this economy that there are a lot of people working part-time. a lot of people working multiple part-time jobs to support their families. pay rates for part-time workers, benefits for part-time workers the ability to take a sick day for part-time workers, the ability to have a reliable schedule -- these are all huge problems facing men and women. it is something we really need to address, and part of the reason why we need to update our policy. guest: i think the last six years, our recovery -- that has been one of the problems. people who want to work full-time take a lower paid job at part-time. the way you adjust this is with the economy. i think we have to be careful about how we get about this.

they are good ways and bad ways. a lot of government intervention tends to actually slow the economy. that being said, i will say, i was reading something which was interesting, specifically about women. if you ask working moms if they would like to work >> , three quarters of working mom say they would like to work less than they do now, even though 50% of working moms actually work. there is a lot of evidence. we need to be conscious that a lot of women would and if it from a more flexible workplace, for sure, but this cannot be done by imposing policies tll m

>> >> an they do now. back in only be addressed by a much more flexible labor market. host: on to charles in idaho. caller: boy veronica and the other lady there are very intelligent and what they are saying. i appreciate what they are doing. first of all, i am an american saying that, i'm getting so tired of aristocrats standing around in their offices doing absolutely nothing, not going down to talk to their employees and asked them what the problem is on their home front. they sit there and manage by just looking at the books. the women in america have ran the country, they run the family, they help with everything that america has ever

done, and for them to sit there in their aristocratic offices and not even express concern for the women or even the men -- i don't care if a woman is a coal miner, works in army, whatever she does. i say kudos to you too for saying what you are saying. good luck, and i hope as americans, we can get together and get these aristocrats down into the trenches and to change his workforce for the betterment of america. host: comments from charles in idaho. let's go to florida where danielle is waiting to join in. caller: good morning. my, is trying to move beyond directing attention of women's

workplace being easier or decisions, or blaming that blaming the pay discrepancy on that, and rather, think about the more individual level. a lot of experimental data in the gender literature suggests that if you examine people in management positions, men with hypothetical profiles of potential employers, and you change nothing between them, the qualifications are identical the only thing the difference is -- host: you are breaking up. i think we can do ju get the gist. guest: i don't know the result of the data. guest: i think she is talking about john and jennifer study where a study was done where the

resume was the same, except for the name. jennifer was offered about $11,000 less. it goes to the discrimination point. i agree with veronica that you cannot tag everything on the wage gap. about 12% of the wage gap can be explained through dimms from a nation -- discrimination. that, more men are leading companies. we need a better pipeline so that women get into an advance a good job spirit to do that, we need to update the infrastructure that allows for women to do that. one of the important things -- we have talked a little better about men versus women, i think our best policies in this country are gender-neutral. there is a family leave act

that has been used thousands of times across the country to allow people take time off work. it is gender-neutral. it has changed the culture and workplaces. we have gone from a society where 21% had access to unpaid leave and now 90% of people have access to unpaid leave. a study done in california which was the first to put paid unpaid leave in place -- shows that moms are able to go back to work sooner, earned higher wages. we know from states as well that when parents take parental leave, they are more engaged. the more we can break down the barriers, the better off we will all be. guest: gender-neutral policies

are always better. i fully agree. i will say, the desire to have more women in higher jobs is a great one. i'm not worried about it. women are going to college and graduating at a higher rate than men. they will be better educated and that is the factor that has a significant impact on the career path that women have. that being said, it's important to note that there have been a lot of studies, and i just one recently from the institute for family and work, that show that when women are surveyed, only 70% of women say that they want more responsibility. it's not every woman wanting a high position. i think we need to have a workplace environment where those who wanted can aspire and

deliver, but again, i think you can have this conversation in 20 years, and the landscape of america will look radically different for a lot of these reasons. i think we also have to be very careful. again, how we go about fulfilling this aspiration. for example, work being done at your receive shock -- the diversity of chicago looks at the number of women on boards. you have more women on boards, based on a study that was done in europe. but then, it has had no other impact. germany has done this too, by the way. the pay gap, however you want to measure, has not changed.

again, a pay gap -- we have to implement the right type of policy to be sure that we identified properly the problem. i appreciate you saying that you are not saying a majority of the job discrepancy is due to discrimination because the way it is talked most of time, it makes it sound that is all discrimination. it is not the case. i think we would benefit from having a real honest conversation about what is the progress that we still need to achieve. host: sun city, arizona. republican. caller: thank you very much. good morning, c-span. what a great discussion we have going this morning. one of the places that i found information on this, and for

vicki sitting there, the starry eyed liberal. she has these delusions of grandeur that the government will take care of these problems for businesses. if you just leave the businesses alone to take care of themselves, they will do it. an employer would have to be extremely full dish to hire women -- fulloolish to hire women at a better price than men or the other way around because they would lose employees like that. when thomas sole looked at this, there was maybe a 5% difference between men and women. i'm 70 years old, i have been watching these numbers for the last 30 years, a lot of it on c-span. is absolutely incredible that vicki consider their and come up

with the same numbers that they had 25 years ago, and if the numbers are true, it means the government has been totally an effective at doing anything to solve this. guest: first of all, there has been progress. the wage gap has closed some. in 1963, when the equal pay act was implemented, the wage gap was $.58, and now it is $.78. if you take the 5% the you are talking about, that is a real wage gap. we have to be real and not say that 5% is it really real. that is real for women and their families trying to make ends meet. guest: 5% is interesting.

i just read a study that found when you control for all the factors we have talked about, it is five cents. you're right, that does matter and that is what we should be focusing on and say, why is it? from what i have seen, women don't negotiate enough. that is true. when you look right after college, that is something that could explain. what do we do about this? i tend to think that it is not the role of the government. we could all do education with our children. let's talk about the real issue that still exist. host: one or two more calls here. tommy from tennessee. caller: good morning. it is obvious that money is being used to solve this problem . my suggestion is, let's make motherhood the highest-paid job

in this country. that way, we eliminate 50%-20% of your crissy and put money in the hands of the people who make this country work, and that is women. motherhood is the backbone of this country. until we address this issue, we will not be better off. host: rob from new york city. caller: good morning. with all due respect for monica -- veronique, you sound like you are in a bit of a bubble with your studies and university chatter. i have worked in a lot of offices since before and after college graduation in the 70's up until today. i can tell you, practically in every situation women are getting ripped off further wages

-- for their wages. they get unequal pay for equal work. often in offices that i have been in, they almost always tell you not to discuss our economic keep it hush-hush, keep it to yourself. in almost every office, they tell you not to talk about salaries. if they find out that you do talk about salaries, they come down on you. the game is that women are not gain paid on the level that men get paid. vicki, you sound your full of common sense, i think you are right on. it has nothing to do with democratic or republican. i hope you can both recommend two or three books each other and that you will read them both. host: thank you for calling. time for a final thought from

each guest. guest: one concluding thought. one of the great victories, or signs of progress, over the last year has been a discussion in congress and its state legislators about the different kinds of policies that working families need. for too long, that was to polarize of a discussion. i think one of the great signs of progress is that legislators on both sides of the aisle, both here and across the country, are coming up with solutions and agreeing that there is a problem. i think that is a sign of progress. in the act specifically, it has a tremendous amount of support in congress. we are seeing proposals on both sides, and both have in common -- items in common. i agree with the caller that we

have to get out of the partisan divide and find solutions for the problems we all know we have. guest: i think talking to each other is always an important step. i think using data that is misleading is problematic and actually creating barriers in our ability to talk to each other. the thing that i guess i would say in conclusion is i think you and i are sign of progress. there are still a lot of challenges but i think a lot of these challenges have very little to do with gender issue and again, have a lot to do with a slow-growing economy, issues of poverty, issues of underemployment, and when we address these, we will address problems for women and their families, and also for men.

i think we will see that more women can work to their full potential and we will see that gap, hopefully, go away. host: our guests have been thrown he gig -- for roenick ti

>> if you missed it and

you're watching on line and have questions you can e-mail them and we will do our best to ask them. i want to introduce our moderator of the next panel who is gary morris to practices criminal defense with state and federal over 30 years who handles appeals and is the president elect also the fourth amendment advocates the co-chair. the supposing he worked on a closely and also works in travis county taxes on a ground-breaking case. please help me to welcome him. [applause]

>> thank you. once again thank you to american university for dedicating resources and staff and all that goes into having us here with the symposium. i have passed around and i'm quite confident this is the most comprehensive symposium on this topic ever held. it is a bit concerning because this is not new stuff. the discussion needs to move forward. the panel is a good segue from last panel we talked about what technology is out there for surveillance or data content and what techniques are available from the government's. this biddle will talk about what can we do about it?

how can we challenge the use of these techniques? i will not give long introductions but we have senior staff attorney in most if you are familiar with that organization also if you look at the materials given when you cavemen if you go to the national association magazine the reviews that decision. with the zero legislative counsel aclu, a senior

fellow at the cato institute and fred stevens said a professor of law at the law school. with a pre-were preparing this panel i proposed to give an idea where we're going with this so what is the current law? and where to rethink it is going? and does the current analysis it does not really fit. is there another way to look at it? or how do we find out if this technology has been used? we heard from the last battle efforts have been

made and had we determined it has been used? for instance with the stingray device it was discovered law-enforcement made an effort of how it works in and keep it secret but how do discover they're used orphanages trespassed that would invoke if it is attached to something or grab it out of the year? and then what do we do with this stuff? have to raise specifically raise these issues? and with that i will direct the first discussion to the professor. >> yes.

i will be the first to follow-up. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. additionally accommodating my panel it accommodative for passover. [laughter] but the situation for the development of the fourth amendment lies in the digital age with some of the major fault lines and issues you are seeing. from a defense attorneys to employing good news and bad news. good news cruz courts are critical to interpret a the fourth amendment with technology. they're doing interesting things and expanding constitutional rights think of the riley decision recently with the cell phones and a unanimous decision to reject the

traditional fourth of mantra ruled this is the surprising development. so that is very good news for the defense counsel a lot of arguments that the lawyer could a man should be making that a few years ago would have seemed very hard to make about it is easier. but the downside is the supreme court is cutting away the scope of the remedy that matters most to say that no exclusionary rule applies when the officer replied of that full disclosure you can believe me i argued the case for david. so it pains me to keep talking about it wherever i go perdu this would happen.

-- i knew this would have been. as they move away nobody gets out of jail so the good news is the fourth amendment is expanding the bad news is to probably will not benefit but there are arguments to be made but first and will focus on the right to standpoint would is a search or seizure there are great pieces out there if you're a defense attorney we should rely on the jones majority opinion nobody quite knows the trespass period it is counter intuitive but a fix on to the car just this week we saw in north carolina

that applies to the ankle bracelet with the gps monitoring bracelet and they did that without argument even. so there is of trespass argument that has that traditional understanding of fourth amendment lot of overtime with a collection of evidence that is another thing you should be using with digital evidence collection because a lot of times it is part of a broader effort that could be argued as a mosaic even if is the traditional context it may not seem like a search. with you arrive the case you should push for those moments just as the supreme

court said that the traditional fourth amendment rule is not from the computer context so to say we need a new rule that opus the door for a lot of opportunities to make those arguments that have gone in this direction. from the rights standpoint a lot of arguments could be made. to push against the doctrine is wryly at your back. i will emphasize that part. but i about of time. >> i will use that same internal clock to figure out by about of time. i may not be the most

helpful to the defense counsel. that is the one note and johnny i have never tried your defended the case or to argue the fourth amendment issues. but it is intrigued with the reasonable expectation is the prefects regarding privacy as a separate issue that does and does not exist. but understand that doctrine is a failure if i don't think it will survive very long with a third party doctrine that the supreme court has been using at least not very much i am sure people read with jones being all about that. but what's wrong with that? it isn't administered very

well rarely does the court actually examine the feeling of the defendant of their privacy or the objective part is just as objective of the part of the judge or judges that issued the decision. usually it comes to the wrong results and a study of people's expectations it leaves people with their telephone dialing information is simply wrong. for the lawyers who don't know about smith vs. maryland to say you cannot read the contents of my phone bill. is also a product of a solo concurrence.

justice was doing his very best to capture a difficult problems with the fourth amendment when he stated what is the cap's test. the voice of the other people to enclose himself in a miniature room of sorts prevents from reaching others but reading your case is. the majority did not decide based on what to insure privacy my a argument is for administering a the fourth amendment the way you would any other lot. if you go through like a student would like statutory

the right to be secure with the major elements of that. was set up protected by the fourth amendment? so a seizure and surcharge collapsed together the mix of hard to work with subtype saugh -- sometimes. but there are parts of the seizure of better not part of the search or vice versa because it is a good seizure case because the search what it talks about is the invasion of property rights. you will be sent off on a tangent with property rights as the excessive interest but property rights go beyond possession to benefit

from the profits according to the bundle of sticks to attach a device to a car is to the purpose is of the of cider and there is an interloper. so attached the gps device to a car is the invasion he did not lose control but it was used by somebody else which is a violation of that right. watch for seizure. often there will pick up a piece of paper to look at the underside this is the seizure iran this is the search. searching can happen but the case where law-enforcement uses a thermal image your

with a profile on this side of the building but it made things that were otherwise imperceptible, perceptible. literally it takes heat waves that our imperceptible to the human eye to move them to a different place on the spectrum so in ordinary light knowing can see the heat of the side of the building but with the technology it made visible which was invisible. there are alternatives to the subjective intention of law-enforcement. were they really looking hard? but to be more granular or even scientific about taking things that our imperceptible as may get in to search is a protected by

the fourth amendment? things that people carry or effects and then finally is a reasonable? the judging has to happen at this point. but at least the question is focused on the right place whether or not the government could be reasonable with its search just like the privacy documents or the individual is reasonable to expect privacy. to apply a the statutory style way of working with the fourth amendment you have to understand how technology works some level walkie through what we have encountered over time.

paper is of very hindi form that is light weight and has a terrific absorbency of think and we use paper to put hieroglyphs into a fixed form and in the right to order they convey our thoughts and feelings and emotions. when folded and conceal the into the envelope the compact -- capacity of paper makes those thoughts imperceptible to brothers that have not access. what we find when the use of physical characteristics of paper to conceal information

it gets fourth amendment protection 7277 the constitutional difference between unsealed mail and open mail the court said in letters and unsealed packages are as fully guarded from examination and inspection and as if they were attained by them 40 them in their own domicile the constitutional guarantee extends to their papers wherever they may be. using opacity of paper to conceal information gives constitutional protection which is backed by lot. but fast-forward through 1929 with the olmsted decision they got the wrong but the defense was interesting but brandeis says there is a wonderful all right to to be left

alone that may we was too broad. look to justice he argued in fascinating language the contrast between telephone companies and users contemplate the private use of facilities the communication belonged to the parties as a statement of property rights within exclusive use of the wire to tap the wires literally constituted as search for evidence. go back to that technology remember those hieroglyphs? that is the abstraction of the spoken language. when i speak into a microphone it takes the sound waves and translates that into the analog electrical signal that passes a law and though wire

invisibly this is a really transferred back into sound waves the of this supplier there is visible and imperceptible if it was 1 mile long somebody could not see or hear what was happening. when they access it the access information vatic is mine. the communication on this wire is mine. is invasion of their property rights to take their communication from me. the internet works in much the same way to take analog signals my face or my voice what varityper say to convert it into your digital electrical signals broken up

into pakistan transferred across the internet. when i hand over this information to the isp is subject to contractual protections set to talk about the communications as a unit of property our mind i have given the easement to the isp and i have obligated them to make sure that information is maintained in confidence across the internet to its destination and purpose there is as good a our committee internet context as the phone context that it belongs to the parties for obviously those details you have to navigate through those specific instances but it is a way to administer the fourth amendment that does not rely arm of subjective in a given

saturation and overtime to apply it on its terms and are consistent with president to new technological circumstances for our hope that there is interesting and informative. think your. >> so i will take a step back to look at federal policies and our technologies are used by law-enforcement in how that affects the barriers to redress the thoughts. right now we have some things are happening. on one hand with outpaced technology development congress is not allowed into hysteria as they are not

allowed into a lot of areas polycrates issues that involves technology almost decades-old. so to discuss location tracking and we're having a debate right now. i am pretty sure there are other technologies sitting in the pipeline be don't even know about yet to have the opportunity to discuss. at the same time as the federal level to put in the civil liberties protections the government is awfully good. so with the department of justice our department of homeland security by state

and local law-enforcement agencies with relatively little strings attached there isn't sufficient oversight so what are the of policies that will facilitate our ability to challenge to major we are armed with the information we need for corporate use or the technology? there are four points in particular. first we need a federal policy that prohibits the federal government. this has come up lot.

and with a boy and the department of justice that in some instances law-enforcement was to give information that was given from a confidential source. we have also seen cases where with a challenge does go up and debated by other courts so that with the express purpose to avoid a court oversight with these new technologies. so this requires at a federal level prohibition to stop these policies from disclosing information.

the second piece is obviously stopping information going to do judges. depending on the context there are cases where judges are asked for a search warrant before law enforcement uses the devices but unfortunately there is a lot of cases where they don't know where they're signing but into, washington judges citing 170 orders and they had no idea of what they were approving because the application did not say anything about that procuress a device or, works for the number of people impacted in this is what we will do to information collected. so to allow the judges to do their jobs is the central piece of the policy.

the third is a talked briefly about the amount of funding from the federal government to states and localities to purchase these devices said it is a blank check so the federal government is not a good at attaching strings to the money so we need more congressional involvement if we are born to give out money for a device they have to have certain policies in place to abide by certain rules otherwise it takes us to a strange place we pushout this technology in a way that it is not used responsibly. lastly, the federal government has been unable to adopt policies in this area with regards to technology. we don't have guidance from the department of justice to say if law-enforcement once

used it they need a warrant. there is the exception but there is no exception but that leaves states without half firm says of best practice is sort of minimum standards so there needs to be a push to the federal level to have consistent standard set the public and attorneys are aware of someone day confront these issues in court they know what the rules of the road are. having said all of that what is congress to bring? that is where i should say sorry. out of time. [laughter] unfortunately the answer is clearly not enough there have been recent efforts of members of congress from more oversight but we cannot have them only getting upset

when they read it in the newspaper we have not created a system where congress demands notification prior to new technologies deployed or infrastructure to ensure we have a privacy debate before it is a problem. this is the part of a general mindset that use of technology now think of consequences later. to privacy infrastructure after the fact so hard to recreate infrastructure before there is a problem? one area congress has tried to redress is a national security and house surveillance technologies are used that is more a result the forces day congressional debate that without those deadlines or a clear push from states have localities have

practitioners and others to proactively address these problems we will continuously be in the state where technology has developed and we are ted or 15 steps behind of where we should be with federal policy. >> that is a good segue to what what i wanted to do talk about what do practitioners do with their specific criminal cases and what can they do with the state representatives while working through the affiliate's? there is a lot that can be done. i don't hold out much hope of congress but i have a lot of optimism about what is happening in discrete criminal cases that the state level we have heard a general discussion how

judges have been deceived and what is important to is the few years ago if you made these claims in a specific criminal case the judge would laugh to route of the courthouse in not taking seriously but we have stripped evidence to show it is happening as a systemic level across the country. you mentioned tacoma. it isn't just tacoma or baltimore they threw out the case because the officer officer, they throw evidence about a stingray device where basically the officer was on the witness the and and asked to answer questions he said i have the nondisclosure agreement the judge literally said you don't have one with me and i will hold you in contempt

the prosecutor said we will concede on the motion. i'd never try a concession this happened is a transcript is sitting on my computer in a criminal case with the next stage over is another example. in florida the "washington post" ran a story about the guy looking at four year minimum charge of a robbery case involved with the use of of bb guns to rob $100 worth of wheat the judge ordered it to be disclosed for review and they cut a probation deal. we can amass this to show what is happening. when the government concedes on concession or looking up for your felonies six months

of probation and -- a provision that is a when for that client so that has to be their priority but we can use those specific cases even though they don't results as evidence to show we're not crazy this is a documented problem. in tacoma and we're talking specifically about the stingray but in tacoma all the newspaper reporting resulted in the judge's basically having a closed-door meeting with the police officers to say we will change how we do things so there is that ability but it is there specifically to make a hell about this to look for cases where they think it is in play parker if there is a search warrant

affidavit that says the source revealed you have to start asking questions as the source a human? computer? if you have a case that involves the government retaining lots of digital data like forensic imaging of a hard drive like if you hear the late child pornography case that is what is happening to have to start asking questions our long have they held onto the data? were they going to do with the? are they deleting it? they are important now because courts are starting to hear grapple with is that the federal and state level. once the committee's request we can make though legal argument to talk more specifically about the rights of the moment we talk

about riley's so much but what is so significant? for meet is to separate things. first is the court did not feel bound to apply the earlier decision that involves a very different idea of. the ultimate issue is whether the police could search the data and the government argued in the '70s the supreme court said you can search of a pack of cigarettes found in the jacket because that is the container you can search in a container found upon the person so the government had argued in many courts have a'' -- agreed that a cell phone is day container just like a pack of cigarettes

but the court ted robinson did not distinguish what was in it so it was okay but friday rejects that to say to say these are similar a ride on a horse is like a rocket ship to the moon it gets you from point a to point b but nothing else justifies to lump them together. tuesday the court has already ruled four years ago that is the answers your. now. it is and. this is different. the second to moment with the court's own language j. quantitative and qualitative difference about the cellphone that triggers a different perspective the african research. for example to purveys

quickly is a phony stores many pieces of data in combination reveals more about a person with text messages and pictures and e-mail and when you look all of that it reveals more about a person even if you're only looking out one piece of data there is so much a reveals more. you may have one picture of your kid in your wallet but your cellphone will have a thousand pictures what you ate for dinner and that matters with that constitutional analysis. also set the date goes back before the phone was even purchase you said deputy ted year's worth of e-mail. the fourth point is that bones are so pervasive that all of these things together

to record a different constitutional analysis that was not dependent with the court said years ago that could work with location and information or the hard drive as a crime scene or other metadata. make them under the fourth amendment the state constitutional protection and you could win it under that. that is the riley moment to ask questions make discovery request to show we know what is going on fox released we think we do rand we have scratched the surface to put up this right the moment i love this phrase to take the

fourth amendment with state law protection. >> questions? come up to the microphone please. >> you ever done a good job to distinguish between the search and the source of the search so i am curious in the context of federal practice when i think of confidential that is the way to ask me understand the source says confidential so we made that discovery is there a good case law about asking the reliability of information gathering are their standard pre-question is that we have evidence

this is inherently unreliable so to give us information what was used or if it was tested for liability or operated by somebody trained it use these devices back the caveat is i am from california that means i practice with the ninth circuit. when people say it you have case law? it is good but it is ninth circuit. it has a couple of opinions don't talk to buy electronic surveillance but the reliability of the source and a specific case it involves a dog in that case they say under rule 16

evidence of the dog reliability because it is relevant to raise a suppression of ocean. i have argued that approach applies to the dog it applies to the technology. the dog tells you about the presence of contraband in the government has argued in this case it supports their use of technology the only books for contraband or programs that could search a computer file to decipher if those images are of child pornography. to the extent dog evidence is discoverable i would say the electronic information is also discoverable. but the key is to raise the

suppression motion it is discoverable because i a need affirmation about his reliability to move to suppress under the fourth amendment to be completed the forthright to challenge that basis you could make that argument in the state court with this state discovery practice if they do have broader discovery rules it is something to hinge your argument on. >> mr. a harper does your

framework protect the individual to control the anonymous? >> it depends on us circumstances. if you to take steps then yes. most of us share personally identifying information in all this time. by posting on a public forum. when away interact with websites we share the it address that is the identify your to be quite reliable it depends on a particular factual circumstances to restrain access to use the information of the others.

there is an interesting dimension to the license plate tracking. the license plate and i am pleasantly surprised of the emergence of this issue because i wrote 14 years ago to testify in congress about the privacy invasive aspects to require a license plates on cars. at the time they thought what is this city it talking about? bed now requiring a license plate is the equivalent to marry nametag to walking in the mall for example,. so hopefully they will reopen the question to put

license on the cars might be a first amendment problem because it prevents travelers to a protest anonymously. the changes are multi dimensional but it is a special category of information to protect privacy to with all the identifiers to factually keep them from others and they should be protected like all other information. >> just a reminder if you have a of question you may e-mail those. "forbes" it reported that mail was tracked to be

scanned and collected and analyzed in unshared. has the metadata been used in any case? >> i am sure it has been because now basically all mail coverage is coming from this program. at least according to the 2015 story instead of the individual request for outside of the mail will be photographed everything is photographed then it just assembles later on. of that is just the way it is executed. >> that is correct as far as i know but what is interesting is it shows when i talked about in the first panel the way the nsa

trickles down to other federal agencies so it starts with national-security collection then license plate readers in the da is broken in january to have a call record database that they place to iran because according to them it is a nexus to do drug trafficking. you think of other countries that our more significant like neighbors to the south. then you hear pro local law enforcement database or the biometric gore the dna. this is the world we live and to the evidence is

gathered and why it is important for defense lawyers not just the broad contours but specifically what happens is in their localities rather states or the other police department of to inform the judge's wife is going on with those specific localities. >> in april there was a report on the use of male cover information that will be linked to the web site shortly thereafter to talk about the uses of the data and the accelerated years. >> u.s. says along the lines of the earlier question of

the issues than federal cases. i have been trying to you get the cart manual that i think would be tremendously useful purpose at this point i have not been able to use successfully tracked it down so have you had any success with that? or anything along those lines? >> maybe not. i don't think it has been turned over and i know there is one criminal case in south carolina where there was an issue if it should have been turned over but the court said it was fine.

the other has done foia work like the blue book i know the loss that is in the district court. alegre but it goes back to those broader plans with the secrecy of this technology it is up to defense lawyers fitter at the forefront to have those clients to use discovery tools chirrup get information with some of simple foia request you don't want to do for every single case but if you have a case then you have got to brief the issue to make the request. that sucks to hear that but it is the integral component

that lawyers the to be aware of of. >> if the lawyer client privilege is vacated then how does it go from the maryland metadata program? like if they use microsoft's hot meal? >> -- hot mail. >> i am not aware of a court suggesting there is a privilege with metadata generally. off the top of my head at least it would go to the contents that is protected under the fourth amendment but there is a difference between the privilege issue sometimes they use the phrase reasonable expectation of privacy. as far as i know it is

distinct. >> reducing there is an ethics opinion on the use of the bill for attorney privilege -- attorney-client privilege. adult'' me as i have cameras pointed at me. [laughter] but i think that has been settled. but be careful with how you use it. and that isn't a good idea but that is just my opinion. >> there is the inescapable implication of other constitutional protections the others and of fourth amendment. talking about going to a political rally the 1958 supreme court decision were

alabama fought all the way to the supreme court to compel the naacp. they held say did not have the right. lot of the technologies with seem to have the indirect securing of information. what are your thoughts on the availability of the first amendment argument with freedom of association that hauled inclusive privacy? >> i think there is a strong argument the first reenforce -- and for its support each other for those reasons that you articulate. metadata is very informative " end quote. " end quote. including all the people

that you contacted at a given time, how long you spoke to them reveal your associations and behavior. and the argument goes knowing this lacks fourth amendment protection you will sell sensor. there are plenty of cases of privacy invasions don't have any role so that fourth amendment could stand on its own that it should rely on the fact there is that first amendment value at stake in it should be protected as such independent of its meaning under the fourth the

subsection is 4 + 1 does not equal for. but my sense is that first amendment will not go far in a criminal context because that is due is engaged. >> allegedly. >> okay. allegedly. so you deal with a context usually it will be relatively clear it was of good faith investigation and the government trying to find activity rather than expose what a group of people tried to interfere with first amendment protected speech. there is a case in the ninth

circuit then it has a good-faith test that goes beyond the fourth amendment problem with infiltrating the group that they will share information with of the government but it could be first amendment is the purpose was to your try to interfere with first amendment expression and. the purpose is to not interfere but it just goes away of the rise it is difficult criminal investigations will involve what a person dead or what a person thinks. if that includes a barrier it is hard to have that generally so the most

protective approach is that ninth circuit that amounts to a the good faith standard for the issue is there but of will be relatively modest >> david clarke. student at george mason. i want to come back to the exclusionary rule as it is a challenging information like government privilege involved or anything like that. is there a way to talk about that analysis with technology with what the government is doing egregious and off -- enough not just accidental? any thought which is excluded evidence?

>> now lacking get to the depressing half of the top. it depends what the courts to with the exclusionary rule and there is a lot less certainty with that standard. . .