we will wind up with better devices for hardware and software in the future. ms. durkan: we are getting close to q&a time. two more lightning rounds and then questions from the audience. lightning round question, the europeans, as nuala has mentioned, the eu has a different approach to privacy, they are much more privacy centric. i don't know if people know that there was a recent they can write to google and say, -- someone searches, i want to be out of the search. there has been a follow-up that says, that does not just apply to european, it applies to anywhere they have a search. can't showhow up -- up in the united states, africa, anything. realistic thing? how would you call it? ms. o'connor: it is hard to be

sure on this one. prof. calo: all right. right thing or wrong thing. i think it is the right thing. theink this goes back to point about the digital self. if it is about me choosing, my rights to be forgotten, or to say no and be out there, i think that makes sense from a consumer perspective. i think it makes sense from individual perspective. realistic in the u.s.? it does noteems -- seem so realistic and the u.s.. ande are a lot of policies, a lot of policies that european countries have that we don't. this is one of those where i think, in the right circumstances, with the right

stars aligned, it is something we could do in the u.s. ms. durkan: ryan? i agree.llprof. calo: it is an interesting principle, but in practice, it will be almost impossible. for two reasons. number one, it will be a free speech problem. your ability to withdraw from the internet is also my inability to talk about you in a certain way. you have to think about that. number two, we have an attorney and audience who works for the internet archive, and there's something called the way back machine that allows you to go back and look at the version of .he site five months ago guess what will be the? the same figurative down. i don't know -- ms. durkan: the same picture? prof. calo: that same picture that you took down.

ms. russell: i guess i don't know about about eu politics, but the lobbying arm here -- all those lobbyists registering as you drop the bill in olympia, that just seems -- my idealism has left me and this is cynicism in me -- i don't know how we would pass that. ms. o'connor: we always approach this debate that we are about the first amendment and free speech, and it are about privacy. it is not that simple. the fair credit reporting act allows for the deletion of your records after seven years, 10 years. we have decided, as a society, you have the right to be forgiven. you also have the fundamental obligation to be known reasons.y for credit

your arrest records, if you are arrested as a minor, they are erased. we have decided, as a country, in specific cases, public housing,on for fairness, equality, access to the market is essential to the social good. in some cases, it is ok to be thing,-- the forgiveness a very spiritual thing. ms. russell: she is irish. ms. o'connor: i was catholic. in europe, the right to be forgotten, i worry, has gone too far. the court order, when you read translated from spanish, it is far measured than

what is implemented. i would argue, if something is true about you, and happen to in public figure, and is relevant larger social good, like most historical facts are, we should not be able to rewrite history. it worries me from a history standpoint. i agree, we have some control over the digital cell, and we have a whole another conversation about revenge non-consensual sexual but aboutaterials, control of one's data and image. they are important. but, just as they, i will take something down because it was ifarrassing, especially for it was a public figure. therfirst of all, the dialogue

and debate is far more nuanced credit,her side gives origins, myprivacy year and a half has moved me to attack.ch is under the that is the greater thing under attack on the internets very, and i worry greatly about it. ms. durkan: we will take some questions from the audience. we have a microphone over here. if you have questions, line of their. we will take them one at a time. if you feel like introduce yourself, do, but if not, don't worry about it. .> i'm jeanette rose i'm very interested in freedom of speech, or the inhibiting of freedom of speech, that privacy provides. recently, i was clicking very

excitedly on some statements that bernie sanders was making, and it was very interested in nexti was reading, and thing i know, i have a pop-up invitation to the communist party. i thought to myself, i'm actually creating a political profile, and i need to wake up to the fact that i am doing that, and be an active participant, or back away completely. any comments that you have about the in addition to freedom of speech that i think is happening due to a lack of privacy? prof. calo: i think that is a very important question. what i would say is it is important to remember that there is a big difference between how you experience something and the potential that something will be used against you. in my own work, i differentiate between a subjective privacy harm and an object of one -- objective one.

i think it is fair to say that being able to cool things that are controversial about gender identity, venereal diseases, anything -- being able to google things and get an answer is thanbly less chilling having to go to library and ask for it, or to your parents, or one of your friends. this point has been made recently in a brookings paper where they talk about the fact that people are good at seeing these trade-offs. yes, google has a record of you searched for these things, but you don't have to ask anybody. .ou may be chilled less on the other hand, there is the prospect that, unlike your friend, who you go ask the question two, or the librarian, or the dr., the company is in a position to use it against you. there are sometimes when using it against you, or using it in a certain way, you become aware

suddenly that -- you are subjectively aware of the fact that you are being tracked. then, you have both, the idea centurylink -- the unease and chilling. sometimes, the worst thing is where you don't feel you are being surveilled, but it turns out things are being denied to you. uw.i, i'm on the faculty at my question is on the privacy of the commercial sector and the advertising model. it is one thing to have amazon me, butdata about google, and facebook, and other social media sites are in the business of ads, so they are reselling data. i wonder what protections you think are necessary for regarding -- guarding that type of data?

ms. o'connor: i think it is a great point, although i am so much more concerned about content and the deprivation of access to opportunity. advertising agency is moving towards is more transparency and the ability to choose to not be part of that ecosystem, should you want that. what worries me -- something we looked at recently, a job search site where people navigating to that site were shown -- i think it was actually a search for a seattle job, and they were 12% women,% men and based on their searching history. it was not just the ad, but the opportunity. the people searching did not know they weren't being shown something in the same category or same rate. that was based on assumptions.

based on aly, not knowing search, on a person's name, but they have come from the site -- to the site from -- let's be stereotypical, a fashion site for women. that to me is the disproportionate impact. the algorithm wasn't set up for that. output was based on an advertising model or cross website tracking model. a very disparate impact. that worries me. it is not just the data, but decisions made about you. i would probably go a little further. i think there are some fundamental principles. people need to know what data is being collected, how it is being used, and who they are giving it to so they can make the decision if they want to continue in that transaction or not. pieces,et those three

you are able to do it. right now, i don't think the market gives people adequate information about that. you here, people vote with their clicks. i don't think the majority of people understand what information is being collected, how it is being aggregated with other information. i think it is a concern, but one that is ultimately -- we will not father through legislation and regulation. we have to solve it through marketplace and people being more thoughtful. answered myave just question. i was thinking about the feasibility of something like your credit report, the you would be able to, once a year, find out what data has been collected from you, and how it has been used, and then i think companies would sometimes be embarrassed to admit what they are collecting, which would cause them to back off. people would then be aware of

what was being done with everything we do online. ms. durkan: people appear know that the fcc and others -- there has actually been talk at the regulations, of doing just that. anyone who is a data collector would have to show individuals the information they have collected, almost like the fair credit reporting act, so you can see if it is accurate. that would only happen if the market demands it. >> when it comes to young people , to become a young person is anyone under 25, and are the biggest consumers. corporations now sell ways,ts in intriguing that kids don't even consider the fact that they know everything about me. folks under 25 aren't interested

in privacy. they are interested in products. you have to make sure the people under the age of 25, especially teenagers, start getting interested in data being collected on them. ms. russell: i think that is an important point, and i don't oh, thate like, generation. i am over 25, but i will say, often times as someone who has hired people and hired people who are in their mid-20's, i am fascinated at the things they thek are ok to put on government. what they choose to put on the internet. i think this -- i don't know if this is a technology issue, did issue, or privacy issue. i think this is a young person issue. young people, they don't think

about long-term consequences. i think that is the case for every generation. all of us went through that moment and realize that there are consequences to our actions and inactions. thisnk that, for generation and generations to come, the problem with consequences never leaves because it is on the internet, and will always be there. >> [indiscernible] prof. calo: one trend that i worry about a lot is the trend from what we have been doing online up until about now, the last two years, which is online preference marketing. the idea is that you see ads on the basis of what companies

believe your preferences are. the idea is that if you like soccer, you see soccer ads. the way it seems to be headed is a little more in the direction that this gentleman is alluding to which is persuasion profiling. persuasion profiling does not look at what you are interested in, but how persuaded you are, and what is the best way to persuade you. this is science. was itmple in a study turns out some people are really worried about what other people think, and they want something that is really popular. for those people, you figure , what is oursay most popular item? there are other people who could way less -- because of some they grew up, they worry about scarcity -- the exact same

product is advertised by saying, "while supplies last." one of the authors of this is now on the data science team at facebook. that is the direction that these things are going, and i think we have to keep a close eye on. ms. durkan: we will switch over. go ahead. >> i'm jennifer. i just graduated from uw. ms. durkan: we already knew that. and you shop -- no. [laughter] >> a couple of things came up that i wanted to touch on. you talk to about think starting from the design side of things. and, ryan, you said, companies, they are not creating with mel bad intentions.

i think it is because of where education is right now, .articularly with uw we have a traditional studio based curriculum, where we do not consider what we are doing as far as ethical and social implications. arere producing things that a great craft. that is what has been happening valley.on all of these studio-based curriculums are bringing designers into the tech world without any sort of bearings about what we are actually working on. we don't have a sense of what the craft is. i would say, with a fair amount confidence, this is happening on the engineering side of things. i did a long research thing about ethics and design. i talked to a bunch of yo .tudents at uw, and berkeley

all of these people doing engineering and design truly don't care about ethics. it's true. what do we do to get behind all of this? ms. russell: i don't think it's nothing abouto ethics, but it is not their job to care about ethics. the company has to hire someone who does. the engineer, you have a job, develop, code. there needs to be someone at the company who is thinking about privacy, and ethics, and the moral issues. i get your point, and with regard to that, i don't think it is in a vacuum. a company is not just -- just engineer oran

designer, and i work at a tech company. ms. durkan: she does have morals. ms. russell: i have morals and ethics, and i would wait and on something like that. but i think it doesn't mean the company or the organization is off the hook. ms. durkan: i think there are three good points you brought up on that. one is, and i have been talking to educators, particularly in silicon valley, and i think instilling that sense of "should we."with a "can also, having the companies themselves have inte interdisciplinary teams. i think, making sure you have that in the roman stage.

you are seeing the same thing around security. outstrips weighay security. .> i'm alfred from chicago i'm from the president's neighborhood. of would like to look at the big picture. i am wondering how efficient all of the internet, and so forth -- even though, i must admit, it has helped me. i could barely type what i got out of high school. writermade me into a since i learned how to use it. i'm grateful for. , with all theme

communications it's supposed to be giving us an marvelous so-called intelligence, the hundreds of billions of dollars stille give to them, we didn't know that the ussr was falling apart, that the berlin wall was coming down. we did not know how many tanks and strength hussein had when we invaded iraq. we did not know how to get hold of bin laden, and we sent and tens of troops, billions of dollars per week to invade iraq again.

me -- howing -- tell efficient is the internet with all of these marvelous intelligence agencies working in the government to give us the information we are supposed to know about so that we stop making wrong decisions. please, tell me. [laughter] i think the answer is we can never rely on the technology if the humans are good.-are not technology cannot replace humans. the bottom line is it is only as good as the people making the decisions. i think that is a great point. >> one last quick question. ms. durkan: you are the last one.

>> i am curious, i don't think the dangers were talked about a lot. we're talking about corporations, and they may use this information against us in some surreal don't thinky, by that is the real risk. i think there is risks with tracking. my family just that into the thate step, and the idea my iphone and everyone's iphone in my family knows exactly where whether they are moving or standing still seems very concerning. additionally, the idea of google -- you were talking about that being better than talking to the library and all your friends, and is not as harmful as it

seems, but when you end up in court and a court case comes up, whether in family court or you are accused of raping someone, and now you'rr internet history is being scrutinized. or, whether there are psychological studies to, on what hours you work searching the information, or how many times, was it really just an educational inquiry or an addiction? first, i apologize to the people who had questions and did not get them answered. if you want to grab is, i know some of us will stay around. i think it is a really good question. we did not get into it, but one question we did get to was personal safety. if you are domestic violence victim, or anyone, it is very hard to hide these days, and very easy to find them. you can sometimes get the actual

plans of their house on mine. you can get incredible amounts of information about individuals. i do not think we have quite reached that point. we had a number of potential terrorist threats against medical infrastructure, -- against critical infrastructure, and yet informationf the online. there is that weighing in balance. prof. calo: are you like a law student? >> starting my third year. ms. durkan: we will give you an inte internship. priva law: as a that, i should tell you, there is this back and forth that lawened early on in privacy

between a privacy lawyer and a scholar named and bartow. she reviewed his book and gave it a negative review. she said, we are the dead bodies here. what about people's lives? i have to say, over the years, working in this area, i feel we more dead more and bodies. some of the bodies are dead by their own hand because something they did that was intimate with was filmed. information is power, and sometimes that power gets abused, and in violent ways.

i appreciate your point, and recommend that back and forth, as a student of privacy law. ms. durkan: we will do what must thought. everyone gets to leave a thought. ms. o'connor: i'm fundamentally still the optimist on the panel. your question was right, we should be worried about the blurring of the lines between your online presence and your physical presence, and the risk that your sharing and other 's sharing. the supreme court's getting it that -- i'm proud to say the cdt was quoted. in recognizing the gps tracking,

far beyond my enforcement -- law enforcement, i think we will try a lot of things and get them wrong in the corporate space and the government space, but we will get to be right answer. these are the rocky days when the platform is not late, but we are doing the right thing by engaging in the dialogue. ms. russell: my final thought is that any innovation can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. we, as a society, have to make when anare not sleeping innovation is being used for bad . that is the same for technology. i think the conversation around all the information and data being tracked and aggregated -- the expectation, i do think, is shifting in this country. as it shifts, i think that is

ok. i honestly do. i think there is still the checks and balances of making sure that it will not be used against you. the same way the technology can be very efficient, make sure i don't get lost in seattle, my new home, can also be used against me. we, as a society, have to make sure that we are doing what we can as a democracy to stop that from happening. on a hopeful note, i think things have gone, in many people's views, too far, and now there is starting to be a reaction. i think you see that in the supreme court's recent jurisprudence. there is a meaningful conversation about privacy and places you might not expect. companies impeding with one another to say they are more private. even in federal agencies, we are starting to see competition in

privacy. i am, on one level, very hopeful , but think it is sad that we had to get so far down the road before the reaction started happening. ms. durkan: i'm with you. i'm optimistic. thatyou in the room show it matters. it is the people who will decide and can decide if they have information. thank you for coming. [applause] >> tonight on "the

communicators," this year c-span stops by a number of technology fairs and spoke with on to the newer's and researchers on the future of consumer technology. >> this building is what we call the farm data dashboard. we wanted to create this one-stop shop and portal for sources on agriculture and production statistics in the united states. a lot of the things already exist from the government, but in this disparate world, we wanted to bring that together and make it easy for anyone interested in small farmers all to way to professionals a access the data and use it in ways that would be powerful for them. >> the idea is that in the smart, texts will be

receive information that i sent it. i will turn it on, and hopefully it will turn on. each of these is a module. it provides vibration or heat. >> what are we looking at here? >> these are microprocessors that tell these to vibrate. >> one of our suppliers here is a company called ipatch. they have and it just a story. it was a person out of new york, a journalist, and he had an idea for a product. now, he eventually selling it. you can come to our platform, find manufacturers, and get your ideas created, and it eventually becomes a supplier on the platform.

>> i agree that there is a long way to go. you hear debates about robots taking over the world, and becoming more intelligent than humans, and so on. that is a very optimistic perspective. i wish we were that smart to smart.obots that we are far away from that. we are making headway. in recent years, there has been a confluence of technologies that have enabled us to have robots that are far away from the smarts of human beings, but smart enough to complete tasks on their own. c-span communicators" on two. , billight, mark cuban clinton, and george bush talk. here is a look at remarks from bill clinton on when presidents know it is time to begin

decision. i think knowing when it is time to decide is a big deal. what all isknow going on and what decision you are making. that is, if you make a mistake, revocable stucco there are decisions when on a scale of one to 100, it is 70% right today. i always ask myself, are the consequences revocable? i will give you one example. whenever we were getting ready to bomb somebody, sometimes my advisor would say, if you don't do this today, you will look weak.we will look so

i'll we said, can i kill them tomorrow? [laughter] you are laughing, but think about this. to lifebring them back tomorrow. if the answer is yes, we can kill them tomorrow, we are not weak. on the other hand, there are those decisions that you will literally paralyze yourself if you do not just go and and make. >> that was a portion of remarks from an event held earlier this summer at the george w. bush presidential library and dallas. you can see the entire event at 8:00 eastern tonight here on c-span. >> congressional lawmakers return from the summer recess tomorrow. in at 2:00 gavels

eastern. congress has until september 17 to vote on the iran nuclear deal. 38 senators support with 56 opposed. six senators are currently undecided. follow the senate on c-span two. the house also returns to work on a measure that would disapprove the iranian nuclear agreement. a final vote expected there sometime before friday. follow the house live peer on on c-span. here fromuse and senate return recess this week and get right to work on the iranian nuclear agreement. getting ready to cover that ron-lopez whora bar will follow that for "huffington post." guest: in the senate right now, the administration is confident that the democrats will be able that hast this deal

been crafted with the p5 plus one. what is going to happen is so far 38 democrats have announced their support for the deal. that is just a few shy of the number needed to filibuster, if they wanted to filibuster the resolution of disapproval. the debate will be pretty heated. they will start on it on tuesday. it looks like, even if it does pass the senate, democrats will have the vote to sustain a presidential veto. the 56 in opposition, there is ben cardin who wrote about his opposition on friday. here is his tweet about that thisgarding the iran deal, is a close call, but after lengthy review, i will vote to disapprove. how does this change it, if at

all, the debate in the senate? guest: i think it very much embodies how difficult this issue has been for all the senators, the congress members, every single person, whether they have come out for it, or against it. they have said this has been the most difficult decision they have to make as a lawmaker. , a lot of us did not know where he would go. he is the third democrat, on top of senator schumer and bob he will voteay against the deal. when it comes down to the numbers in the process, i don't think the administration is going to be sweating it too much , because of the fact that they know they have the votes in the senate to sustain a veto. pelosi sentr, nancy out a letter about getting everybody on board to support the iran deal and vote against the resolution of disapproval. the rules committee takes it up in the house on tuesday evening.

the floor debate begins midweek. what will the debate look like in the house and wha who will be some of the leaders there? guest: the house is a bit more fluid now in the colleague leader that you mentioned. minority leader pelosi said that they have well over 100 democrats that have come out in support of the deal. they need 146 in order to sustain a presidential veto. .hey're not quite there yet she has been very aggressive over the recess, as well as the administration, to make sure they get the support they need. it will be very interesting next week. host: let's go back to the senate. one thing we did not touch on is the potential for democrats to filibuster this from coming to a final vote.