believe that campaign finance system needs to be strength, you have public support and you have organizations of people on the ground. you have organizations here in our lovely capitol of the united states that are actively wageing proactive campaigns including every voice and many other partners. there is great effort to amend the constitution and juris

prudence and there's great work to change the way we finance our campaigns so that candidates and elected officials are more responsive to the people that they are hoping they'll be elected to represent. so -- and there's more. their efforts to expand run off voting and implement voter registration. there's work being done. we have to make sure we are engaging the 85% of americans and i bet you right now we are only engaging a number of that. even in the last year, there's the largest -- i forgot the term. the largest civil disobedience

in congress ever not just in democracy ever and we had hundreds of people getting arrested, so -- 1300. were you one of them? great. i think there is promise and there's hope. ultimately people power will outnumber the very, very wealthy that want to keep -- that want to keep control of their power and the more we are able to organize and activate, the 85% of us out there, i think, will see change. >> that's a great point. whenever they want to ask, do you want to make it easier to vote, more early voting days, easier to register to vote, do you want absentee voting, do you want to be able to register online it's always very popular, all of these prodemocracy reforms are very popular whereas on the other side the people

that are passing voter id laws and restriction laws are having to do it mostly under the radar because they know when polls may show people support voter id because people don't understand it that well, once there becomes debate in media and people don't like it. people like democracy. they want more of it. that's why i'm in the end despite of assaults hopeful on this stuff. >> all right, so i wanted to give it up for zach ross. thank you very much for joining us today. [applause] >> i really can't say enough about the book for anybody who personally know me, i don't read that much. i read this in a couple of days. i loved it. it was awesome. it really is a great comprehensive overview of the state of our democracy, not just today but throughout history and after i read it, i thought everyone i know should be reading this. please, i encourage you. you can purchase the book out of

the bookstore and zach will be signing books right here today and we appreciate all of you coming. >> thanks to ronna and every voice. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and here is a look at upcoming book fairs and festival happening around the country. next saturday book tv is live from madison for the wisconsin book festival. look for author discussions with prize winner discussing career of scott walker. on saturday october 29th. it's the louisiana book festival held in bat own rouge at the state capital.

coming up in november live from usa tin to the texas book festival with the likes with likes of alberto gonzález, colombia university law professor and orange is the new black actress dian guerrero. later in november book tv will be live from the miami book fair, that's november 19th and 20th, our coverage include author discussion and columns including senator bernie sanders, fox news host dana parino and for more information about the book fairs and festivals book tv will be covering and watch previous festival coverage, click the book fair's tab on our website booktv.org. >> you guys all set?

i wish i was. >> hey, everybody, welcome to the noon panel, it is called security without backdoors, the future of digital privacy. we have an amazing panel. people who you've probably read, pe people who have been on my podcast. i'm host a podcast called note to sell. that's my biggest fan on the front row and it's not my mom, so what we do on note to sell is we look at how technology is changing human behavior, sociological look on it and it's becoming large parts of our behavior, what we buy, how wer download, how we are in touch

with loved ones and how we do everything. before i begin i have been instructed to tell you that the books by three authors can be purchased by barns&noble immediately and they will be signing books in front of the billing. okay, so i want to ask, how many of you are here because you dous have privacy concerns? okay. that's like -- i'm going to go with 80%. c-span viewers, you can't see the audience. this is being carried live by c-span2 which is exciting. how many are here because nonfiction is my jam? nobody, come on. [laughter] >> don't raise your hand if that's not the case. you're in the right place, obviously, so what we are going to do is have each of the authors give sort of 5 to 10 minutes. i asked for readings but they all decided to decline to read. >> it's a serving for all of our books.

>> i know, how will they knoww that they should get their money out afterwards.. no, no, i want to tell you about it. maybe thatly choose select passages. having read the majority of all three, they are informative, enlightening, frightening butt also optimistic in their own special way. let me introduce everybody and. then we will -- they will do their thing and have discussion here and i definitely want to make time for you to ask questions. i'm sure there will be many of them but we want to make sure we get to as many people as possible. again, table h. so fred is going to kick us off. fred security analysts and he's here to discuss his dark territory, the history of cyber war.te next to him is bruce, one of the world east most security experts, data and golyath and

laura next to me, professor of law at georgetown university law and director of georgetown's center on national security and the law and she is director of the center on privacy and technology and her most recent book is the future of foreign intelligence. privacy and surveillance in a digital age. please let's welcome them and then we will get started. [applause] >> so i past, present future. the thing to keep in mind when you're reading the headlines today is that all of this might be new to you but it's been going on for a long, long time. it goes back the dawn of the internet. in 1967, '67, almost 50 years ago the precursor of the internet. there was a man name willis and

he had been a pioneer in computer. he worked at princeton and advisory board of nsa. he wrote a paper, it was secret at the time, it's been declassified and the thing about putting information on a network or you put information online, it might have been the first use of the word online, online from multiple unsecured locations is that you're creating inherent vulnerabilities, you're not going to be able to keep secrets anymore. when i was doingra search from my book, i said, did you read willis's paper, i knew willis, what did you think. i took it to my team.in oh, god, don't create a security requirement for us too. look how hard is where we've got.

it's like telling the wright brothers telling that they have to travel 50 miles and carry 150 passengers. it did take decades, two and a half to three decades by which networks had grown up with no provision for securityth no whatsoever. now, it took a while for securities to start happening. by the time they started happening in 80's and 90'sing ia this became -- national securitr directive signed by ronald reagan which was spurred by his viewing of war games and asked if something like that could happen which basically reads like things today read, computer systems face vulnerabilities, electronic intrusion from terrorists, foreign spies, criminals, not much was done. by the 90's there was a war

game simulation where 25 reads teams of the nsa using commercially available technology hacked into all of the defense department's networks including the links between secretary of defense and president of the united states because there was no provisions no protocols, no nothing while the nsa defense network they ran across a few ip's from france. f france was hacking up in 1997. after that the pentagon starts putting intrusion detection systems on the computers, guess what they see, intruders, russia and pretty soon china. when you read descriptions of what's going on now and we canou get into more of this in the question period but it has been anticipated for 50 years, it has been actually occurring for 25 years.

it's been in secrecy, all within the national security agency and other organizations that you never heard of which are byag nature everything about them extremely secret so it's only recently that we are beginning to be aware of this and to think about the strategic implications and some possible solutions.of so that's -- that's the set up. >> i guess i'm present. this is the christmas carol. >> yeah, right. >> my book is data and golia. i look at data and surveillance both corporate and government, how it arose, how to deal with it, privacy in the world wherew our cell phones are most indicate mate object we carry. this device knows, you know, where she lives, where she works, where she was today, where she slept last night. we all have one.e. so who she slept with.

these devices know that, they have to know that to turn them on. the search engine here is an intimate device. i use today say my engine knows more about me than my wife does. it never forgets things. and so i look at all of this data we are producing and what's happening to it and what we should do about it. what i want to talk about here in a few minutes is the title, back doors, there's an aspect of this that's very interesting. 2004 greece, greece has cell phone network like everyone else does. in the greek cell phone network there were surveillance capabilities built into the equipment, the manufacturer was erikson, the capabilities were part of erikson switches. they didn't want capabilities but were part of software inbr equipment deliver today greece, in 2004 someone turned them on

and we don't know who. spot on greek politicians for about a year. that's a backdoor. that's a surveillance capability in a piece of equipment that's being used by somebody who is like not legitimate user of the equipment. it's access not the primary means, for data or to control. it's either accidental or deliberate. accidental backdoors are bugs, vulnerabilities, we hear a lotoi about vulnerability to follow this issue. these are programming mistakes that are in computers like this one, like your computer, the ones that microsoft fixespu patches tuesday and apple downloads patches for that can be use today spy on systems and then there are deliberate backdoors which are like the iricson or what the fbi wanted apple to do.

so who wants the back doors? lots of people do. cyber criminals want them, terrorists want them, hacker activists want them. some of the data los angeles you read about come through back doors, the dnc leak, back door in the system, i'm not sure exactly how, we believe the russian government used to access the systems. police want them to, rival government wants them so there's this debate about what to do about back doors and the debate very much mirrors the nsa's two missions. they -- the nsa is the agency with two separate missions. actually until recently they were very separate. the second mission which is the intelligence mission, spy on their spy and the info mission, to protect our stuff. these missions were much easier to separate when our stuff and their stuff were different. when the russians didn't have

the same internet we did, it was easy to protect the internet and spy on whatever the russians had. the problems is that today we all use the same stuff. it's one world. we all use microsoft windows ant tcp/ip and chrome browers and when you think -- and secure the systems securing us and them, do we want to leave them open. that's the fundamental debate we have here. sometimes you'll here a term called nobas. nobody but us. there might be vulnerabilities that nobody but us could find

and what we know is that that seems not to be the case. once there's a back door we can't control who uses it. something else you might hear in the news is stingray, a stingray is a -- it's a trade name for for a stake cell phone tower. this is secret technology and has been for a couple of decades. the fbi has used this to basically spy on cell phones without a warrant.t. they can put a stingray and they can know who is in this room. it was a big fbi secret for many years. they would not prosecute people who threatened to release evidence about that in their defense, there's one point when the state of florida is going to release some documents and federal marshals came and seized them.

stingray run devices and run by against foreign embassies, not run by us. you actually now can go alibaba.net and buy your own devices, cost about a thousand dollars and you can conduct this kind of surveillance. this is the problem. today's top secret nsa program are tomorrow's thesis and hacker tools. once you have a backdoor, everybody can use it. one last example early on the snowden documents. i was involved in writing articles about them. there's something called quantum, quantum was the big secret the nsa didn't want us ti release. quantum is the system by which nsa intercepts your internet request to sites like facebook

and slipping malware allow to go take over system.n kind of cool technology. [laughter] >> it is sort of neat. this was their big secret, they were using this for a lot of really good spying missions. there's a hacker tool called air pond that does the same thing, you can download it and it was part of undergraduate homeworkpa assignment at mit, these are capabilities that slow downhill. if, indeed, we are choosing between security for everybody or vulnerability for everybody,l the question to ask is, what makes us safer? us in the united states, industrialized world, internet security is so important that we are safer securing our systems even if it means losing

intelligence capabilities. i think i've set you up nicely. [laughter] >> i didn't do my job. can i just pass these downs? >> you gave us the right ones. >> i know who you are, i want to make sure everybody else does. >> thanks very much. for those -- for the three for whom nonfiction is your jam, that's also mine. it can hardly be otherwise. for the 80% of you or more who have privacy concerns i share this concern and that's why i wrote this book. in my view the attacks on privacy are the most serious threats to liberty in the united states today and i don't say that lightly. i feel in my days the encryption debates an smaller debates we have been having section 702 is we are watching the shadows on the wall, there are bigger issues at stake. in particular in the book i talk

about three that are coming together that are really changing the right to privacy. first is over the past 15 years we have seen a radical expansion in national security authority despite efforts by congress and the courts to rain in the executive branch in in intelligence surveillance act, the executive responded by 9/11 by acting outside the law altogether. when the actions became known they tried to shoe horn back to provisions an proved exceedingly ill fit. aiding by new laws that gave more power as well as broad secret, legal interpretations that stretched the ordinary meaning of english language. the government managed to reintroduce general warrants which the founding generation for good reason sought to prohibit in the fourth amendment. the second factor coming together is that the weaker standards that are being adopted in national security are now

bleeding over into criminal lawa with profound implications for rights across the board. i talk about this in the book at great length. third, the fourth amendment doctrine is failing to provide a backstop for the changes that we are seeing particularly because new and emerging technologies does not account for them in the background. the most indicate mate details as bruce pointed out, that means that they can be accessed, combined and analyzed even as the resource constraints which protected privacy have dropped away. the network convergence is accelerating the process and the dichotomy that the court have used and there are four dichotomies, personal space versus public space. content versus noncontent. personal information versus third-party data and domestic information versus international

information. these all break down in light of the new technologies that have emerged. now these three factors the broader surveillance authorities, the failure of fourth amendment doctrine are leading to an airing of our rights really in my view at stake as future privacy in the united states. i just want to say a word and a general warrant. this is why we have the fourth amendment. general warrant is a document that's issued by the court or executive branch which gives officials the broad authority to search for and seize prior products without any evidence of wrong doing. it does not specify the person or place to be searched or the papers or records to be seized. it's not supported by affirmation of any wrong doing. it amounts to a fishing expedition to find evidence of illegal activities. and for centuries prior to the american founding englishr

scholars rejected as the worst exercise of power and this idea was closely linked to thes home sancticy of the home. every man's house is called his castle, why?be because it is surrounded by a mote or defended by a wall? no, the poorest manmade in his cottage defiance to all the forces on the crowd. it may be frail, the wind my blow through it, the storm may enter, but the king of england may not enter. all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined -- this time in the form of assistance. so james ottis taking famous in

american history. he attacked the idea that the crown should have this power. he said i will to my dying day oppose with all the powers and faculties god has given me all such instruments of slavery one hand and villany on the other. general were the worst instrument of arbitrary government power, the type of power that cost one king of england his head and another hia thrown. and concerns about the sanitity of the home and importance of ensuring privacy for security. one of the most essential branches of liberty is the freedom of one's house and a man's home is castle and wellleh guarded. john adams was present at the time and later wrote about otis

and state constitutions were to prohibit and madison took on the bill of rights he vowed to create a prohibition on the use of such warrants and so we have the fourth amendment which establishes the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and affects against unreasonable search and se chuirs. common law of which general violated the common law. so the government could not collect private information, they could not just enter into your home and they had to have a warrant and they had to be specific in the second part of the fourth amendment lays out particulars of exactly what has to bert included for that warrant to be valid. no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the personal things to be seized. so with that history in mind, we

could perhaps be forgiven foris being surprised in june of 2013 to wake up to the guardian newspaper announcing that the united states is collecting meta data and the phone records of millions of americans. requires verizon to collect between united states and abroad and entirely within the unitede states issued by the secret court. the order did not name any individual of wrong doing. it did not specify a crime. there was no oath or affirmatioo . in fact, it did not appear to be tailored in any way whatsoever. any one search with the order was obligated to comply andd rather than starting at the

outset with information indicating that illegal behavior was under way orders were being used to find criminal activity. in short, it was a general warrant. now some people have argued that the information that's collected under this order is not private and so it doesn't deserve the protections of the fourth amendment, that statement does not survive scrutiny for two reasons.s. first, this is not the only program under way. there are a mirror aid of collections under way trying to collect information about u.s. citizens and running algorithms to try to find out -- try to find evidence of illegal activity, but the second reason in here, i'm actually going to read -- >> do it. >> a short passage from the book because meta data provides enormous of information. bruce has said data is content but meta data, meta data provides the context for everything we do. it can reveal the most indicate mate details of our lives and

far easier to swift through than general content. meta data absolutely tells you everything about somebody's life, he continued, if you have enough meta you don't really need the content. it's sort of embarrassing how s predictable we are as human beings. former nsa director put the point more strongly. we kill people based on meta data. why is meta data so important? it offers consistently allowing for more accurate descriptive and analyses of who we are and what we have done and what we are likely to do, during one phone call to credit customer service line the content makes problem in recent billing cycle, repeated calls may signal unresolved financial difficulties even single calls reveal insight. meta data is sensitive even when collected on just over 500 people for a few months. the scientists were able to

infer a range of medical conditions based on telephone meta data. one participant spoik at length with a cardiologist and talked for a short time and received called from pharmacy and a reported to hotline for a devici . one person telephoned -- you have to wonder, they did know they were in a study. they volunteered. a hy [laughter] >> i'm from california. two days later -- one monthar

later called it a final time, the meta data provided inside tt participants, heart conditions, gun purchases, cannabis cultivation and decision to have an abortion. .. the advent of big data in potential of these analytical tools. but technology has catapulted our world forward in the process has made what happens to the future privacy in the united states one of the most pressing questions of our time. >> i should mention laura is watching her book tomorrow actually. [applause] she's doing it debate with michael hayden. if you are in d.c. so we've got a law professor, the photograpphotograp her, journalist and what i want to ask each of you can assert if your land somewhere public

opinion stands right now in light of what happened last night in manhattan. thank you in the united states, a lot of us feel very and settled by this. i hear from my listeners that it's really creepy when they say to there has been issued by more almonds and an ad for almond turns up on their laptop or phone. we are not at the point in france where they have asked ended the emergency action in terms of privacy being overwrote since what's happened over the summer. fred, will you kick a southward >> some distinctions need to be made. a lot legitimately so about metadata. really a very, very small part >> when this five-man commission

that obama appointed, the biggest reform that, metadata's created by phone companies. they can draw on it. it's been taken out of their hands, put in the, back in the phone companies, and the nsa can gain access to it only by asking for specific information. the person who proposed that as a compromise reform was the director of the nsa at the time, general keith -- >> alexander. >> alexander, right. because metadata hadn't helped that much. because there's another provision called section 702 which is not metadata, it's data. and while the commission, and it's from foreign stuff, and the commission concluded that there had been no connection to a terrorist found through metadata.

they found there were about 48 cases where the 70 to 2 data -- 702 data actually had helped in capturing terrorists and in forestalling terrorist notes. plots. that's something that isn't noted much. and i think a lot of people -- >> bruce, you're shaking your head. >> 51, actually, not 48 --- >> one, actually. >> no, you're thinking of the metadata. >> no, no. >> i'll take a different tack, we don't know. >> i'm just say what the commission's report -- >> no, the commission's -- >> 51 cases in which 702 data that helped forestall terrorist activities. this can be -- in my book, there is a footnote to it, you can look up the page. [laughter] but the point is a lot of people are willing to give up certain things if they think that a terrorist not is going to happen.

one other point i just want torr make, and i'll be very briefed. so brief i'll be accused ofll being oversimplified. why is the nsa interested in what's going on in domestic stuff overall? what i'm about to say is not a defense, an excuse, it's an explanation. the way the internet works, you know, when you send out an e-mail or a cell phone conversation, it busts up into a zillion little packets ask and comes back together at the end. it's kind of a miraculous thing. the internet flows where the internet is concentrated. 80% of all internet traffic in the world with at some point goes through the united states. so if a terrorist in pakistan is talking with a terrorist in yemen, at some point it's likely that communication is going to be somewhere in the united states. the nsa at one point figured we don't need to have listening posts in these places where we have no access, let's intercept this conversation in modesto,

california, where the packet is going through, and we'll hop onboard. that was the reason for wanting to hop on the backbone of the internet through the prism case and so forth.f again, the if you look at the fourth amendment literally, it does violate the fourth amendment because nest domestic conversations do pop to up within this. it's very hard just to grab, ohe here's the foreign ones, there's the domestic ones. there are legal safeguards within the agency to get rid of the domestic stuff but, hey, ins the add managers of president trump -- administration of president trump and attorney general christie, they could say forget about those safeguards. we're dropping them. do whatever the hell you want. so the potential for abuse is massive. the actual incidence of abuse so far is fairly isolated. >> depending on how you count. it's, what you're hearing here c is what i talked about, this notion that we're all in the same world, that you cannot spy

on the russian submarine communications without getting a conversation from topeka, kansas. you just can't.ho it's on the same communications networks. so you asked about public opinion, and i think that's worth talking about. because we all have these -- there's a lot of things going on here. we're talking a lot about government surveillance. we didn't mention corporate surveillance. look up to vacatin hawaii and you get at for the next year. for the things you see are very tailored, more pervasive. how much do we want these companies knowing about us and our fears and the things we worry about and think about and use that to try to sell us things. our comfort but that tends to change. there's a lot of we feel this way. it's a creepiness we don't like and how did they know that?

who told them not? i didn't tell them not. how did the phone company know where he was an predict where i will be? we've seen in the past few years, snowed in in the documents really pushed this out for government. a lot of surveys that show people are very concerned about this, not sure what to do about this. privacy is a don't have a cell phone, don't have an e-mail address. you can't be a fully functioning person in the 21st jury. even though facebook makes their money spying on you. that's their business model. we cannot engage but that is how we interact with other people. the most interesting survey i saw was about a year ago which looked at what people dead because of the revelations. all international 700 million people around the world the

changes in their behavior because of the event and other surveillance that came in the wake of snowden. a lot of them didn't do anything useful. maybe they meant to do something and said they did. to me that number is 700 million people felt like they should do something. i can't think of another issue that moves that many people on the planet at a time. smoking didn't happen that fast. i think there is going to be moving. we are all just a little too scared. when you are scared, you're willing to have things done to you, even if they don't help because you think they might get the fact that all the surveillance doesn't actually make us safer or doesn't percolate through. something must be done. therefore we must do it. that's what we had because we

are scared. my guess is in an election or two this becomes a serious issue that the important of the real reasons why we have these security measures, both limiting the law and the actions of the for-profit corporations that manage the infrastructure we need to function. our papers are no longer in our homes. the more secure our papers are, the more likely they are in somebody else's can either in the cloud. these old notions don't work. i think public opinion is very much changing it is going to be a decade or two, but we won't get the privacy because that's where we get security. >> i want to point out one thing. we are going to go to your question. there are two microphones here. please go ahead and lineup of laura answers the question as

well. >> i take your question along the lines of what is most people are afraid. i think we should do her own thing regardless of what other countries do. the bill of rights is meant to protect against the majority over writing. even if most people would be willing to trade privacy, that the point. that's why we have the bill of rights. the government may not go beneath that solar without amending the constitution and that was the point of the anti-federalist said we have to set a floor to the government does not read its powers beyond the rights. on 702, one of the arguments with sausage given when the government uses certain secrets. they scan the internet traffic looking for the selectors and they do it offshore. you have heightened protections in the united states, but she done overseas.

they can do this overseas because communications traffic is all going overseas and they have certain targets. one order before the 90,000 targets are not about order they stand traffic overseas to look for these key selectors. they've been very private about what the sailors are. one of the arguments often given if it's not people reading it. it's a computer. your privacy is not violated. the argument is that no human being to say, there is no privacy intervention. only when they pick a possible threat that if a human being a human being season at which point you have some sort of reasonable suspicion or some criminal at tivoli. i've always found this argument perplexing because if the government were to come into our homes and put a camera in the shower and say we are going to record you in the shower, but we are not going to look at it.

we will they look at it if we have a really good reason to do so. that would not personally make me feel any better. privacy is determined by the person under surveillance, not by the first active of the person doing the surveilling. there is no automation exception in the fourth amendment to take account of privacy being violated. i think i'll probably just leave it at that. >> i would just add that i really interested in this idea of each person defining what privacy means to them. that is something i want to explore on our show and also we did a great episode about stingray and the guy who figured it out the two were actually using this weapon. if you're curious to know more about that, please check it out. let's take a question. >> my question is direct did to the nsa in the security agent gave are really not capable of doing this job without this terrorism thing, without massively violating people's rights on so many levels. they are just not capable of doing that.

because you look at the idea that james bond, for example, of actually doing the work in finding these thousand people, that has gone completely off. i think you are right in your assertion that basically we are going to have to have an encryption and are because unless the people, round to the philosophy that privacy is a central bedrock to our republic, to our whole way of life, the governmengovernmen t agencies have no reason to stop. these guys are smart technocrats. congress isn't quite as top than or bring them in any significant way, especially if there's any kind of terrorism threat or people are confused about solving. so yes i think you're right. how would the encryption standard work and what sort of encryption should be moving towards until the people catch up to what they need in the political system responds correctly.

>> will probably lose because of the audience. i want to talk about your notion that the nsa can't do his job without surveillance. we know more about the fbi. esb right now -- the fbi is in a position that we need to get data off suspect cell phones. and i think there is a box of expertise and a little bit of laziness that before cell phones you had to collect data manually. you had to go and investigate crimes. now while you did is the cell phone. there's been about 20 years, 15 were the fbi lost a lot of its investigating capabilities. and now there is this lack of expertise and not argue that what the fbi needs is not backdoors. non-access to everything that they need to reengage the investigative techniques that they've lost but are still capable of.

i don't think it's gone forever. if you put in legal restrictions on mass surveillance, you would get back this expertise. i don't think all hope is lost yet i think you have to push back on these easy technique to violate so many liberties and force the government back into the older techniques that worked then, work now and will work tomorrow. >> assured i'm not come in the encryption debate in many ways is about the basic question, is there any such thing as private digital data? is there any such thing for that in some ways is what this is all about. the second point i want to make of this started out in san bernardino as a national security issue and that quickly in the criminal law. another example of how it starts out for national security purposes to weaken the standards and expand the powers and then it becomes the norm for all criminals. they're hundreds of police departments that want to open

phones and they treat them on a case-by-case pieces for ordinary criminal at cavities. the third point is direct your commie has repeatedly over the past few months that says we always had the authority to break into your phone -- to obtain affidavits, to get evidence from you for evidence of criminal at cavities. that is not true. from the founding of the country until 1967, over 200 years, there's something called the mere evidence rule. the government could not issue a warrant even if it was particularly supported by the affirmation describing what he sees. if it was going to be used as evidence in a trial for evidence of criminal activity, they could only get the information through the fruits of crime when you steal something, the painting of the middle east would be the fruit of the crime and instrumentality would be if you killed someone.

this revealed the things you could get by warrants until 1967. in that case the court said we are going to step back but we worry the government will begin using more and to get evidence of criminal activity to use in court. we have not always had this ability from the log first met perspective to get the information and the reason was because the founding generation worried about protecting a sphere of intimacy within people could develop their own thoughts, their own ideas. they could mediate relationships and decided they were going to bring into their lives. they could develop their ideas then this is the fundamental and side. the people change their behavior when they think what they say and do is be recorded and watched by others. the founders worried about that. most importantly the harm created by giving the government and tied into the private lives. this could be used to find individuals who might be

political opponents have been the target to undermine them and head off political opposition and used to override the structural protection in the united states. this is what motivated the founders to create the prohibition. >> i want to point out that it's killing me would only have five minutes, technically less. i feel equipped to go all day just order food and stuff your luscious take one more question. we may have time for another. >> just a quick comment. the comment is a sad commentary on the american people if they are willing to feel more comfortable to fight for their constitutional right to no longer these intrusions could reach into the cake the harder they are to fight. my question is several of the panelists have mentioned we either have completely secure,

completely open, but can't it be a little more sophisticated msn that it seems that they develop within thread program which would have been very fact that at catching terrorists and i've done a good job of preserving constitutional liberties and the bush administration rejected it in favor. i think the trailblazer which didn't do a good job of catching terrorists in a poor job of catching terrorists. >> trailblazing has been replaced. i've been to a lot of people are very sympathetic that this program actually a scale up to the would need to do the kind of surveillance that's needed and all world wide web world. >> there is a lot more you can do. we're simplifying a lot up here.

>> but yeah, i think we need to because otherwise we are not going to be able to reach 99% of the population and its effect in them in ways that never has. i commend you for simplification. >> we do use math first. >> this question is for bruce. i'm a huge fan. i know that the undermine privacy bileca said i feel like i need them to function as a 21st century individual. do you have any advice? >> the advice as you make your trade-offs. i'm going to say this on whatever, c-span2. i played pokémon go. so we are forever making our trade-offs online banking versus not, e-mail versus voice conversation.

politicians decide. our decide. or save us an e-mail or make a phone call? we are all making our trade-offs. the world is such that we are being shunned to insert directions. i choose not to be on facebook. but i'm a freak. a lot of us have to be. my advice is you make your choices and you have to be okay with it. if you want better protection, it's not what you do. if the systems around you. you have to fight for better legal protections, corporations because that's where the battles are. the battles are not about your practices. that's where the battles are. >> i agree with the importance of making trade-offs. you have to know what is going on in order to make informed trade-offs. one of the big problems is a lot of national security laws don't know what's going on. the big surprise is the government could apply tangible goods with the information being

thought was relevant to an authorized investigation. that language was read secretly behind closed doors to mean that all telephony metadata is potentially relevant to investigations generally therefore we are going to collect everything. so if you are going to make relevant decisions, any greater transparency. just after these revelations came out, right now the government said in a case called clapper, the supreme court that clapper did not have standing to challenge 702 because he couldn't show he was under surveillance by the government. the solicitor general had represented during oral arguments that if the government played somebody under surveillance using section 702, they would be told during the

trial. thousand 2013 before the documents came out. six months later 702 is released and it turns out people are not being told when section seven of two data is used in the trial which is why challenge the number earlier because there's so much we don't know. the fbi continues to refuse to release the definition of what to write for an information. you kind of don't know if the governments using this information again to you. we need more transparent the issues and how we want to protect privacy in our lives. >> to have a yes or no question? yes. [inaudible] >> it seems the executive branch is getting more and more private. you see an inverse relationship between the privacy of citizens and the secrecy of the

government keeps? >> yes or no answer. sorry, fred. >> yes. whatever that means. >> i know. what can i do. >> if we say, what are they going to do? >> okay, though. just answer. >> sometimes the government, for example, the whole business of the nsa is like looking for vulnerabilities in systems no one else has founded and the white house made this decision when you find they would have stayed great, let's explain it. now it has to go through generations he to decide whether they should close this vulnerability are exploited. they have to answer five questions.

>> probably not yes or no questions. i am told it has been used sometimes. this is a very interest and am much more significant than it may sound for the government is actually not doing something to extend the powers or at least asking a bunch of questions before they do not answer just by the direct or of the nsa, but by the national security adviser and the president of the united states. >> the difference is the power dynamic. you have the corporation of the people. privacy increases your power. surveillance decreases power. if what we wanted liberty is the least difference between the government and the people. surveillance and the people reduces their power, private individuals decreases. government secrecy increases

bad. government transparency decreases difference to you best way to think about it. >> for me it's more than transparency. one of my colleagues at stanford wrote what is the best title. he let that how the more safeguards built into the system the less secure they become. because the social shirking occurs. that is inside his national security. what he noticed about the redundant the is the more people to look at the problem it doesn't get better. you need more robust, better oversight of this program tonight is the position we find ourselves. >> im manoush zomorodi. thanks for being here. [applause] >> find the people in front of the building for barnes & noble

will be selling their books. [inaudible conversations] >> here's a look at some books that are being published this week. columbia law professor tim wu argues america's rapid growth has led to excessive advertising and consumption in the attention merchants. in true vine, beth macy recalls the kidnapping of two african-american brothers in 1899 from virginia who were forced to perform in a circus side show. bates college professor margaret cryington looks at -- crichton looks at the assassination of william mckinley in the electrifying fall of rainbow city. bobby seale and photojournalist 1250e67b james provide a history of the black panthers in power to the people.

also being published this week, the life of edith wilson, wife of president woodrow wilson and her influence on the presidency in madam president. historian tyler -- [inaudible] looks at how new york city became a desired destination for immigrants in city of dreams x. be daniel gordis provides a history of israel from its origins to today in israel. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch formany of the authors in the near future on booktv on c-span2. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.