anybody knew how to handle them, before.epressions we managed to pull out of them within a couple of years. as we know first one now that lasted as long as it did. e did not pull out of the depression until we entered world war ii. so even with all of the egislation that franklin roosevelt was able to get congress to pass, that in and of improve id not help to the economy until things changed very radically. >> our thanks to emily and to dunlap for being our guest on the story of lou henry hoover. and our thanks to the white house historical association for their help throughout the series.

>> tuesday, 9:00 p.m., first adies features the life of eleanor roosevelt. a constant traveller, it was who gave the nation's first radio address to people.ican she held regular news conferences for female reporters only. she spoke on what have of the new deal policies.

promoted heifer causes, living wage, and civil rights. she was the first first lady to address a national political first to and the write a daily syndicated column. us tuesday, 9:00 p.m. eastern as we learn more about eleanor roosevelt. the new s returns in year with the five most recent reagan dies from nancy nights,lle obama monday live, 9:00 eastern on c-span.

>> if you're a high school student, make a five-to-seven video and include c-span programming for your chance to grand prize of $5,000 prizes.00,000 in total studentcam.org.t >> coming up, a discussion on ew technologies for public safety. after that, journalist glenn reen wald on nsa surveillance programs followed by c-span's year in review, focusing on immigration policy. next, a look at new technologies for public safety and the from y issues that arise

their use. this event is part of the first ver citylab summit examining urban ideas from around the world. from new york city, it's an hour.

>> welcome, everybody. david bradley, our co-host. this is the most interesting of it's the because thing that's changing most in is how the boom n new technology and the innovations that we're facing impinge on our personal privacy liberties. start with jane, jane helped found the aspen homeland security group in a nice washington.n he took me out with janet

napolitano. and we started with a group to look at the very issues in aspen. jane, the whole new cyberexplosion, how is that do homeland way you security? >> i think running concurrent to the internet, f which is instantaneous and 100 nic and growing by connections a minute is the global cyberawakening. all of us who are on the internet now are instantly connected to information we need, making the data liquidity now something that is not only but in t and powerful, all of our hands. and this cyberawake ng has three important implications. irst, what we know a lot about the people on the internet, we know a ton about them. people almost entirely as consumers, not as citizens. government interfaced with citizens, principally. number two, the law which is

the sed to anticipate familiar and guide us is neither guide nor guardian in this environment. third, governments had not really been in the game in cyberspace largely because the most powerful actors. >> now, what happens is when you're in homeland security and you're worried about a pattern of activity, you can find 1,000 times more information than you could have years ago about a person. tell me -- give me some examples and why we works should or should not worry about it. >> how we think about how it fight nd the way we terrorism in the last 100 years. the bad guys are out there trying to come here. the way we need to prevent those is to find the way they are and keep the way they are, them where they are, fix them abroad. we used intelligence, the international our partnerships in nato and other

governments. of that to ingling identify where they are and prevent them from coming. they're here. what if there are already individuals inside the united affiliate with these ideas and mean others harm? how well will the intelligence our military, or our international partnerships work? e need a different model and approach to being able to say to the american public who have this expectation that your everything s doing it can to keep you safe. specific take a very example which is nowadays, cameras all over midtown manhattan, in boston, of course, cameras, perhaps quite luckily the end of the marathon. you now have new ways of using biometric optical scans so that faces, other devices that you can tell other people's faces, tell me how that works. you actually know anybody of interest is at any moment?

have to have new deals in the road. > with technology, we can know where most people were at any moment where they are. example?ou give me an >> an example i think and the commissioners here from boston steps based on the personal mobile devices that the individuals have and the the people ade and can -- that's been available for a relatively long period of time. using the devices and using fight crime and see what happened and build a case is important for law enforcement community.g in our so people understand the sort of ces of this ever present emission of knowledge and location, i think rules, the sensibilities are changing, the rules are changing

with them. feels a bit big brotherish at any given moment, the government knows where i am. of my colleagues said the more serious problem was little sister, not big brother. it's -- it's companies knowing, for example, and tattling on you history.r purchase there's a famous story about literature coming into a getting home, a father very angry why we see this young 13-year-old daughter getting literature and pregnancy testing literature. her browsing habit suggested she was pregnant -- and she was. we go quickly, before on, a different kind of question. there is now no secretary of for the unitedty states. no one filled your job. no deputy secretary of homeland security. seems totally dysfunctional. we can't even fill jobs in washington now. is that a problem? >> it's a problem if the process

the processes and in many ways in washington have broken down. it's not a problem because in case of homeland security they're experiencing their staff they're filling the positions on an acting basis, i come out of a military background. the leadership rotates all the time. everyone is expected to be rained and step into a leadership position. so in the instant case, it's not a problem. question, you know, i don't think anyone would accuse washington of being a at the ed machine moment. > and how are innovations, the subject of this conference, acting our privacy. that in a espond to moment. but i have to respond to one thing. i think we need to worry about big brother. it's not just a matter of companies engaging in this kind intrusive activity. surveillance by the state has never been greater and has never lacked as much transparency as as a e recently learned

result of these revelations. let's not for a moment suggest hat surveillance by the state is not a serious matter. it's increasingly serious. freedomthreatens is our and our liberty. the united states of america, he preamble of your constitution is we the people. a life about living and freedom from surveillance. we have to get the bad guys. as you do. as much but we have to find way of doing and law enforcement and counterterrorism and privacy. of privacy.xclusion developed, ng we privacy by design protecting into es into proactively the design of technologies, business practices, operational working with the government to do this. if you think it's a pipe dream,

i was invited , to speak at the pentagon by the department of defense in march. they were ecause attracted by the idea of privacy by design. privacy and surveillance. privacy and counterterrorism measures. they invited me back in august, session on how to do privacy and counterterrorism. table me put it on the that it's not -- don't worry about the state. worry about the state. let's do something to ensure our privacy, which is the freedom, ladies and gentlemen, let's not orget -- people think it's the personal right, a fundamental human right, a personal thing. it's not this -- it's the underpinning of freedom. value.mous societal >> when you talked about your papers for this, you talked not being a tradeoff, not either/or. you have privacy and security by new technologies you just touched on a moment ago.

technologieshe new work. >> so we talked about abandoning the data zero soem model. when you r the other have unnecessary tradeoff. tradeoffs.n the you explore. this is innovation. privacy is essential to innovation. privacy is a necessary but not sufficient condition but necessary condition for innovation. breeds new ideas and creativity and how do you do this? we advanced something called encryption. it's facial recognition, fingerprints, voice, whatever want. but it's encrypted so the only for t can be accessed is properly authorized uses. >> if i walked to grand central, hey're picking me up biometrically, that goes to law enforcement data bases. it's encrypted. there's some reason they

feel they might need to trace me, they would have to get a to do it. >> you need reasonable and probable grounds to access that law of information by enforcement. we do that by surveillance cameras. can code and crypt the video stream. o not only is it not authorized, it's inaccessible. totally fine be for people in the department of homeland security. >> it's in play in homeland security. mean, more people than there are on the planet moved through in the last ten years. more than 7 billion people. acquisition is never its own point. acquisitional n period. a privacy er been breach in tsa. i'm endorsing the notion that privacy and security, these two things can

travel together. bit worked up. i made a comment in the green room i would ask a philosophical question -- why is privacy such -- if i was growing to the k&b ked drugstore in new orleans and got marlboro, it would take 7 to 10 minutes before my parents would know that. i had no privacy in that regard. sometimes people confuse or they a word we , which is all love which when they really mean is anonymity. do things anonymously in the society. years, we to 3,000 have not had anonymity. if i do something like town, where i grew up. my community, people kind of know.

know. without anonymity, we had to better than we do with. do you feel we need to preserve before we go about our liveles? >> in your small town, your parents, others, you, absolutely. but what didn't happen was that tracked in wasn't perpetuity, forever. the ability to track whereabouts, our your mobility tracing is big. tracking this is not used the way it was intended. reason we need privacy is -- it's such a basic concept. like breathing. you take it for granted until you need air and you're deprived of it. you look at states that morphed from free and democratic societies to totalitarian states, the first thread to

arrival is privacy. academics study this, point it out again and again that don't have acy, you freedom. >> why. >> the state has -- > don't go to the extreme opposite. >> why do people morph into it. >> the presumption there is that somehow the state or the have every right to have access to all of this information about you. i'm not talking about your house, ithin all of your activities that you engage in. privacy is about control. individual has the ability to use that information. >> not able to drive on an airline. >> not about concealment.

it's about your choice of how to son. nformation about your >> if i travel on airlines, does that remain private. > not saying there aren't lots of places where you're required by law to get information. you give it gladly or you don't engage in that behavior. we don't have citizens, taxes, we have to pay the irs, law tose, is required by get that information. we know the rules. legitimate uses of information and the protection by the information organization. >> what about buying a gun? able to do that privately? >> we can get into the gun debate. there are laws and the laws have to be followed. but the converse to that is that department is collecting that information and only permitted to use that information for a very narrow purpose. intended to use it for secondary purposes unrelated o that primary purpose of collection. it's very narrow. so privacy is about freedom and

largely go about your activities as you wish subject to limited exceptions subject, of course, to law enforcement. >> i agree with you. questions.se let me ask you, the limited do you feel you're using that information for purposes for which is not today, right now, say in the jane's department? personally. ow it >> how about security in general. >> homeland security, i worked with them. issue. no but i am going to point to the obvious which is to the nsa come out.s that have not just nsa, my country in canada, the csc, that kind of thing. has revealed the massive scale of information about law-abiding citizens that are collected. let me point you and if you want the reference, i'll tell you after. excellent article on all of the false positives. being u're identified as a potential terrorist and you're

not. hit.a false enormity of the false positives is staggering and unacceptable to free and democratic societies such as ours. it's unacceptable. offuse those people are not of the list. they're the false positives. can they are cleared, you go through enormous problems and anxieties. outrage yous. >> well, i feel like a vitz tore from outer space here. crime story in new york is in two respects a distinction of the privacy and municipal problem story. in the first instance, it's as to a solved problem that we thought was retractable.

the homicide rate in new york year will be down 86% from the homicide rate in the same population e same and the same structural problems ago.ears now that's astonishing. that the thing is changes that took place are tech.vely low public all located in places. this is going to be important when you center the conversation privacy. changes that took place with the computer to be able to for the police force where crimes keep happening and here public drug markets are located. rocket science even circa 1975. it was a change in policing strategy and it worked very well. now, what about privacy?

well, in a funny sense, if you're talking about public about a ou're talking serious problem that i think for cy is the wrong word it. reason for that is public places are too dangerous for the autonomy we associate normally with privacy. for instance, if you want to talk about 700,000 stops and the s in 2011 and 2012 and fact that they keep talk happening to the same people in same neighborhoods and the alse positive rate is hovering around 98% as anna expressed, serious a serious cost, problem, serious benefits. it's not about privacy. about is government

dignity respect the and autonomy of people in the know s even though they things about them that require a relati relationsh between government and -- >> how has technology and the new command center we're going see today change that? >> it doesn't change that. that's the relationship between if machines ople that stop us and frisk us, folksappen in the airport that are going to travel, in a funny sense, the indignity in power cess, the competition when two people with testosterones are on the sending and receiving ends of the stops and frisks doesn't happen. this is human relations and i

what you have s is a polite use of government, a of technology. and some notion that the of the false positive and erybody who is stopped frisked is treated as if they are guilty, then you're going be wrong. i don't mind and, going through a machine if i'm one of 100,000 people who is see the president of there are states and people who are trying to make sure that none of the 100,000 dangerous. nd >> let me open it up, if i may, if we can turn the lights up a see.le bit so i can raise your hands, questions? to your innovation comment? >> yeah. >> and this gentleman here. there.quick comment >> i never answered --

>> the question about innovation. i'll make this really fals. reason privacy is so important to innovation, i say as a psychologist, we have bandwidth.mount of we have a limited ability to focus on various things if we're we think a society we're constantly being surveyed. people are watching this. us all thes watching tim time. imagine you live in the time of nazi germany which is, of nonsense. if you live in the society where you were constantly being surveyed and watched? do? do you self-destructive behavior. they shield their behavior. not because they're doing anything wrong, but they don't to be watched and surveyed. focus shifts away from

creativity and risk taking which there's because limited amount of what you can focus on. bandwidth is important. we want to encourage freedom and not otion that you're constantly unsurveilled. one of the professors, leading had a st, he recently broken and he wrote about how freedom was in invoking innovation. worried china wasn't going in that direction because restricted.m is to official, but essential innovative pursuits. >> not going to sit here and nazi to comparisons to germany. >> she didn't mean it that way. she pulled it back. pull-back. >> i meant no respect at all. nothing like that. hat i say is if you look at countries like that and you look at what changed in those

of eties during a time heightened surveillance, what their is people alter behavior. they automatically shield nstinctively and what goes is innovation, creativity, and freedom. >> what's happening right now, are emerging, not only in this society, but globally. eople have expectations of inclusivity. hey have expectations of transparency. they have expectations of reciprocity. if it's good enough for you, do this or are you doing this? in response to this. o this is -- there are global movement antidotes and rep excesses. not theacy community is only one outraged. >> we had an officer involved hooting that was resolved because someone held it over the

window seal and approved it. google glasses, i gave one of these officer and said start filming. we in cities are going to have to figure it out. think that the federal communications commission is this pace ep up with of change? list. it to the >> so we have to figure out what the boundaries and protocols are of technology and public safety. because it's exploding quickly. any of be interested if the panelists have any thoughts might be ifegulator level, at the municipal when who? >> i can tell you how involved.ns will be that is if the security device is useful, it will be tried at

and if there level re any norms that are going be invoked to limit it, they will probably be in different levels. sitting here in a city where there's an ongoing conversation now with the police innovates with security, and a federal court protect when there are costs imposed. i the point that i think want to make is that first of ll, cameras are so cheap now hat in public places, if what you're concerned about is the filmed, game be over. we now are going to be living of record in public spaces. >> everything you do in public space will be on