civilians but also from a military and point. relatively speaking it tends to be slower. it in terms of the bush administration to the modern day we have seen rapid leaps and

bounds in the types of technology available all around us. i was wondering how managing policymaking, what are the changes we will be seeing? >> in terms of the technology itself, you are seeing huge battles over things that most americans do not understand. like net neutrality. if you ask down in the subway this afternoon, anyone over 40 would have no idea what you are talking about, chances are. those are huge battlegrounds. i think that they are not well understood by the people making the policies, because most of them are over 40. there are long-term implications by people who well understand it. this morning mica gave a terrific talk about the balance between listening in and how many people you could listen in on. a few people, all of the things that you needed to do, security threats to the country, 300 million people coloring things electronically. clearly. you cannot do it any other way. since you do not have a nationstate that is a danger to us as much as a diffuse movement of individuals, anyone of home -- whom could harm people. you have to have this huge catch. security policy will change dramatically and is already changing dramatically. finally, of course, we go back to what we have been talking

about, the nature of technology changing, changing the way in which you talk about policy in the way that you talk about policy having to change, the way you formulate privacy having to change. julie: one of the things that we notice in washington is that laws and regulations are keeping up with technology. the patriot act and nsa surveillance, keeping up with how fast technology grows. also, members of congress are not always that tech savvy. lindsey graham saying that he has never sent an e-mail, these are u.s. senators. ed: well, it is not a requirement to be a twitter expert to be a senator. [laughter] ron: i was not a great student -- ed: i was not a great student. i was in the upper two thirds of my graduating class because i'm sure the bottom floor.

-- flunked. i was always a reader. i read six newspapers per day. i knew every point of view, from the liberal kennedy democrat to the right of most people in this room, probably. at the end of the day i think one of the things that bothered me in the technology question was people were very narrow in what they wanted to read. i'm not going to read this conservative junk. i'm going to read this so that i know it's happening. my sense is that that is dangerous long-term as it reinforces the point of view, there is no flexibility. what i have said repeatedly here to my students and to people around the country, all the issues that we deal with today as americans, all of these issues are all very complex.

if there were easy answers, it would be done. they would fix education in new york city with his dedication based on other things. if it were easy -- it's not. he doesn't want another run at it. at the end of the day i just hope that you young people, when you think in terms of policy you have to have a broader scope. the thing that scares me the most about technology -- i have my ipad, i basically do everything i can for those who watch fox news, who appear on fox news with the other 4 million people, we have this running -- he has 200,000 people watching him on msnbc and he brags about that all the time and i write about 4 million. that's what howard says every day. [laughter] i think the most telling thing to me as a statistic, 96 million

jobs will be eliminated in the next 10 years by technology. that is a very significant number. we basically have to think in terms of policy questions. technology is great. how do we create 96 million jobs in other areas? in different societies, a blacksmith, a medical man, the blacksmith was every bit as valuable back then. today the difference between the most educated, many of you here, and those who are not educated, who cannot deal with technology, it's not just the economic cap, -- gap, it's the ability to deal in the next new world that scares and frightens me that we need to deal with. ron: let me take a minute to relate to the question of policymaking and the bush white house.

9/11 exposed for us that we were not prepared. remember when president bush left sarasota and flew across the country? the technology was not sufficient enough for him to be able to communicate with his advisers. there was spotty communication. sometimes there would be a signal, sometimes it would go out. all of the times across the country they had to tune in to local news stations on air force one because they did not have the technology to communicate through more secure communications. for us, with the vice president being often gone, we had to communicate with him through secure satellite feeds. sometimes those would go out. the white house situation room had to be dramatically upgraded at the same time when he conducted those meetings. the obama administration has really benefited from the advancement of technology.

i can tell you, on september 11, 2001, it showed how inadequate that was so that he could formulate these policies. moderator: at the back of the room, there? >> my question is directed towards ed rollins. you said that the message should be controlled, but over the last 50 years clearly the people don't have control. it didn't work for nixon, he had to resign. you should try to work through the clutter. it should be not just try to stay in the same position so that you can get your message straight across?

ed: when i say controlled, i'm talking in terms of a message. basically on the governor of the state, i want to talk about the things that are important to the country. i need support from the country to get something passed the congress or what have you. during the obama care debate the president needed to control the agenda to get people across the country to support his program. if i stood up and said -- let's talk about 50 other things, i'm talking about the element of how you do your messaging. any of you that are going to get into communications, you have to understand, it's not negative, it's positive. if you want to have a conversation with someone and you have a point of view, you don't want to talk about 55,000 things.

like the guy in the country club who sits next to the guy in the bar and asks if you like sports -- i love sports. this guy proceeds for the next 40 minutes to talk about golf. i walk out and i'm bored to death and i go to my wife and she asks about the conversation and i say terrible. you have got to ask that second question. football, baseball. my point is that as a president does not do good for the president, i'm not going to be able to articulate my message. my message is this. obama care is the important thing for me this week. the iran contra deal is the important thing for me this week. i have to use the media as my vehicle to the country. it's not manipulated. iran contra, we would much rather not have had it. that had nothing to do with messaging. monica lewinsky was something the president would rather have not debated. my point here is how you communicate with the country. the country wants to know what the government and the leader is doing. moderator: more questions there

at the very back? >> thank you. i would like to compliment your panelists for living history. you are part of this great american story. now i have a futuristic question. i would like to ask you all to comment -- do you see jeb bush as the next president, or his good friend hillary clinton as the next president? ed: maybe. [laughter] i think that jeb bush is an extraordinary man. he was always the bush that was assumed to someday be the president. we have got a very crowded field on our side. probably the best field of candidates from 1980. several very competent governors, several senators. some very articulate men and a woman in the race at this point.

we probably have 20 candidates. for him to win, he's got to -- it's not going to get handed to him. he's got to run an effective campaign. i think that in the case of hillary clinton, it's a little bit different. if her name was bill clinton junior, she might be challenged. she's not being challenged at this point in time. i'm not the expert on democrats, but i don't think anyone will run against her with any significance. i think she will be the nominee. it could easily be a bush-clinton campaign. at this point in time of my side it's too difficult to predict. julie: there have been a lot of

focus groups and polls and stuff showing jeb bush having problems in the early states, voters are hostile towards him. his name, his positions on common core and immigration and more. i don't think that he is a lock to get the republican nomination at all. i think it's a folly to try to predict this early. hillary clinton, her disapproval ratings are going up as she gets more partisan. she has benefited from high job approval numbers from when she was secretary of state. i think that the democratic voters are going to wish that they had more choices. >> i think that hillary is likely to be the nominee, who knows what happens in politics. republicans, i think the most formidable candidate would be jeb bush. he is closer to the center than

the other candidates on the republican side. i think that this is a center country. i agree that jeb bush may not win. scott walker, who i think is basically an empty suit devoid of principles is a hell of a politician. if the conservative vote crystallizes around him, they could dispossess him of the nomination. ted cruz is going to pull off the people who have no platform whatsoever except i hate everything. he's clearly unqualified to be president i would not support k-6, but he is the real deal. there are a few other people it is fun for us.

ed: these other governors, from other states, they are not qualified. howard: as you may remember, i get my ass kicked. [laughter] ron: the interesting thing about american politics, take sarah palin. the next day she had 300% name id. in this day and age today, we have 31 governors. i like john kasich every bit as much.

to a certain extent the field, the big important field, we will have a formidable candidate to run against mrs. clinton. moderator: to be continued. thanks to our panelists, thanks to you for coming. [applause] there are many more panels over the course of the day. i encourage everyone to attend as many as possible. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >>, on the next boston journal -- washington journal, shira

center. congress this week debate the iran nuclear agreement and faces the september 30 deadline for spending budgets. highway funding expires at the end of next month. we will talk about all that with stephen dennis who covers the senate for roll call. washington journal live with today's headlines, your phone tweets.nd tweaks -- >> the house and senate return from their summer recess this coming week and get right to nuclearthe iran agreement, particularly a resolution of disapproval of that agreement. getting set to cover that debate is laura barron lopez who covers congress for the huffington post. who will be some of the key players and what will we hear in that debate which begins tuesday? laura: thanks for having me. thehe senate right now,

administration is pretty confident that democrats are going to be able to protect this deal that he has crafted. far, 38l happen is, so 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 is going to be pretty heated. it able started on tuesday. it looks like, even if it does pass the senate, democrats will have the votes to sustain a presidential veto. >> one of the votes they don't is ben cardin, the ranking hiser who wrote about opposition friday. here is his tweet about that. he says, "this is a close call but after a lengthy review, i will vote to disapprove." does his opposition

change the nature of the debate in the senate? laura: i think senator cardin's opposition very much embodies how difficult this issue has been for all of the senators, all of the congress members, everything will person whether they come out for it or against been theaid this is most difficult decision they have ever had to make as a lawmaker. a lot of us didn't really know where cardin would go. he is the third democrat on top of senator schumer and senator mendez to say he will vote against the deal. when it comes down to the imbers though in the process, don't think the administration is going to be sweating it too much because of the fact that they know they have the vote from the senate to sustain a veto. >> let's take a look at the house. leader nancycratic pelosi sent out a colleagues letter about getting everybody on board to support the iran deal, to vote against the resolution of disapproval.

up rules committee take that in the house on tuesday evening. floor debate begins midweek. what does the debate look like in the house and who will some of the floor leaders be? laura: the house is a bit more fluid right now. in the colleague letter, minority leader pelosi did say 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. they aren't quite there yet. she has been very aggressive over the august recess, as well as the administration has been, to make sure that they are trying to get the support they need. it is going to be very interesting next week. >> let's go back to the senate for a second. there has been talk about the potential for democrats to be able to filibuster and be able to prevent this from ever coming to a final vote.

i think the number they were talking about is 41 with 38 now in favor of the deal against the resolution of disapproval. they just need a couple more. our democratic leaders in the senate indicating at all that they might have the ability to stop that from coming to a final vote? laura: because they are so close to the 41 number as you said, it will be interesting to see if they decide to do that. senator durbin's office have said democrats aren't planning to filibuster manson said he will not support a filibuster. undecidedhat are because it is such an intense debate, they may not end up getting the vote. -- >> laura barron barron lopez covers congress for the huffington post. follow her on twitter. thanks for the update.

on c-span, twore conversations from the presidential leadership scholars program. first we are from dallas mavericks owner mark cuban, and then to former president, bill clinton and george w. bush. that, a conversation about technology and civil liberties. a look at news media coverage of george w. bush's presidency. >> he was a not the. he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night on q and a. about hereege revelation that her relative was a nazi

. dogs and heo trained them to tear humans apart. -- there was a pleasure he felt when he killed people. something that when you are normal, if you don't have this aspect in your personality, it is very difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's you and a. -- q and a. over the summer, president bill clinton and george w. bush kicked off the presidential leadership scholars program. it is a leadership development seminar for military, business, and leader. first, dallas mavericks owner mark cuban.

>> thank you very much. we are in dallas, so we thought it was only appropriate to start the program with two mavericks. one of them danced with the stars and one of them went to the big dance with president bush. kevin sullivan got his start in communications in the sports world with the dallas mavericks. the lessons he learned ultimately landed him in the west wing where he served as president bush's communications director from 2006 2009. today, he draws on his experiences to advise leaders all across sectors. he released an e-book called "breaking through."

our other panelist has no problem breaking through, especially when it comes to making his voice heard to the referees at his courtside seats. mark cuban is one of america's most successful entrepreneurs. beginning at the age of 12, by selling garbage bags door-to-door, along the way, he learned a lot about the kind of perseverance it takes to survive the ups and downs that any leader must navigate. finally, i think this is an appropriate setting to share that in just two weeks, mark will be adding to his resume president of the united states with his acting role in "sharknado 3."

[laughter] if you need some tips, there are a couple of very distinguished gentlemen here who would be willing to share some advice. please welcome kevin sullivan and mark cuban. >> that was a great introduction. just to show you how far mark really has come, take a look at this photo from his early days in dallas. what was that, about 1982 or 1983. getting involved with personal computers for the first time. you see the american dream taking hold. i have seen you quoted as saying

it's in the doing, not the dreaming. but what is the state of the american dream? mr. cuban: the american dream is alive and well. does everyone here watch "shark tank?" it is the number one show across all of television watched by families together. now i have eight, 10, 20-year-olds telling me about their ideas and companies. i don't think there's any question with the type of people that we have here that the best is yet to come. i think that some of us get the sense that we are down. that is so far from the truth. i'm seeing more and more amazing businesses and ideas every single day and i couldn't be more excited about the american dream. >> you have to go to silicon valley or new york? mr. cuban: i'll tell you this.

there is no media from silicon valley, i'm sure. [laughter] they are looking over your shoulder for the next six star, big deal. you come to dallas, come to austin, and you get people to come to work. the university system here is amazing. we hire locally. it is less expensive but they are just as smart and driven. i am not here to say that it is the next silicon valley but that texas is the most amazing state when it comes to not just developing talent, but creating new companies. [applause] >> the sports fans among us know that you had kind of a tough night last night.

without rehashing all the details of this deandre jordan commitment. from a leadership standpoint, when you have a setback, what do you say your people? mr. cuban: you think for a second, what have i learned? and then you move forward. you have to look to see whether you have to reinvent your business every single day. all this great talent is out there trying to kick your butt.

if i am going to stay have to keep on moving forward. that is the way it is with the mavericks. we have been fortunate to this point in my 15 years there and i think we have great leadership and a great team and we will keep moving forward. >> presidents make a lot of tough decisions. our scholars have the privilege of going to the clinton library and studying the tough decisions that clinton made such as the landmark welfare reform legislation. president bush made a lot of tough decisions. often with utter disregard for his personal popularity, based on principles that he brought from here in texas to d.c. how you handle those really tough decisions, especially when getting conflicting kinds of advice? mr. cuban: i tried to be very self-aware and know what i'm good at and bad at. i try to have smart people around me all the time and i

cross my fingers. there are just some decisions that you have to trust yourself. preparation is everything.peoplh a risk taker. i never take risks. every business i've ever started , i have always felt like i have done my homework. this isn't a risk. fortunately, i have never been in the same circumstances as our two presidents, and i can't even imagine the stress. in my little world, i tried to be prepared, have great people around me, and be prepared to make the best decision i can. preparation to manage the risk, what kind of things do you do? mr. cuban: i read. i talked to as many smart people as i can. a lot of times we think we know .omething

sometimes success can be her worst enemy. even though i feel confident about something, good about , i am like, am i sure >> in terms of your team of advisers -- i know you're not a big hierarchy guy. flat structure. mr. cuban: in today's day and age, there are so many communication mediums, so you have to figure out what your vision is as a leader, how you can take those people around you and put them in a position to succeed, and really understand how each of them needs to be communicated with. it is not all one-size-fits-all. we are used to seeing everybody with their head down in the phone. i can try -- i try to do everything the e-mail as much as i can.

but when i get bad news, that is when i have to reach out and go .ace-to-face you always have to be in a position where it is not about you, but about putting people in a position to achieve your goals. if that point comes when you go your separate ways, that ends up being a contact for you to network with. >> here is a question from one of our scholars. she is all about empowering women. she has a great project to empower women with business skills. she asks for your device on better partnering with the private sector as someone in a nonprofit world. there is no business small or large that hasn't -- that doesn't have its own social

conscience. you are not going to be in situations where you are the only person knocking on the door or picking up the phone and talking to them. you have to recognize that it truly is a numbers game in every no gets you closer to a yes. there will come a time when you think they are going to say no. that is when they say yes. .hether it is women's issues it is not supposed to be easy, it is supposed to be hard. you putting the energy to be prepared. i always have a test. do you dream about? is right for you. if you wake up and you are taking notes about your business because that is what you are thinking about, then it is right for you. if you have that much commitment and conviction, who now -- who

cares if it is one more door you have to knock on. >> as an entrepreneur and investor, what are the biggest obstacles for starting or growing a business? mr. cuban: companies don't fail for lack of money 99% of the time. they fail the lack of brains and effort. the one thing in business you can control, and i say this to athletes as well. the one thing that you can control is your effort. that is the one thing no one can ever take away from you and that you can control. that is the key. if you are putting in the effort, you got a shot and you can be successful. >> you have another kind of famous mark cuban shark tank contestant who had a patent, he

was basically just trying to license a patent. mr. cuban: there was a gentleman who came on the show who had an outdoor coat. he had a lot of pockets and in his pockets, he had patents, so that if you ran a wire up your sleeve and connected them to something to listen. how you patent that? when i was a kid growing up in pittsburgh, i would listen to the pittsburgh pirates and i would have a transistor radio that i would hide from my teacher. i would run one of those old-school headphone things that had a wire. i would run it up my shirt and kindliness way so the teacher wouldn't see me. i'm like, how do you patent that? i went off on it and he created

this big uproar and led to me funding a chair at the electronic freedom foundation called the mark cuban chair. to think it'sng crazy and i said, that's exactly the point. to me, that is an inhibitor to progress. when you go back to the 80's and computers where there was ibm, if you did it in a clean room and independently created it, you could run with it and that led to the start of the internet and the computer book. for now, it is a race for the patent office. in 2006 -- i had a movie distribution company called magnolia and a theater company called landmark. we decided we needed to change things up so we wanted to put

movies on tv, dvd, and online before they are in theaters. natural course of business. we got sued because somebody patented that after reading what i have done. they reference for i was doing and turned around and sued me for it. i think there is things that we need to do because it does inhibit progress. >> another scholar question. asks.y per project is teaching teenage girls in the gambia have a start photography businesses so they can earn money to stay in school. youasked on "shark tank", measure roi, but how do you

measure the social good? mr. cuban: roh, return on your heart. what else is there. there is no i, it is about heart. .t is something special she madeked about how her product personal. and i think that is the roh, making it personal. another question from a scholar in the chartered school network. dallas-fort worth whose project is -- she asked, how do you find the time or just the mental space to

think? you are a big idea guide, how do you think? mr. cuban: there is not a lot of mental space there so it rolls over very quickly? everything is a progression. i forget the exact steve jobs quote where everything is a remix. the more you learn, the more door open to learning, the more ideas you have. i will put it in a different way -- and i say this to dirk and other mavericks players. the most competitive sport there is is business. it is incredibly competitive because you are competing 24/7/365/forever. i love the competition of it. i basketball game isn't so good but the business is a

sport. it is nonstop. that is what gets me excited and keeps me going. that is why i love to continue to learn. >> i heard you say in a radio interview not too long ago that your biggest fear is that your kids would grow up to be jerks. there's you guys going to happen. what you mean by that time about how you manage. we drive our kids to school, we put our kids to bed. we have helped during the day, but at night we tried to be by ourselves as much as possible and we tried to make our kids appreciate. it is hard to explain, but i

wanted to have a little bit of struggle but not too much. i wanted to learn, appreciate, not feel entitled. that is what we tried to do as best we can to always make them feel appreciated of everything around them. jake andou got to meet hopefully came across as somebody who is going to grow up to be that way. day?u read three hours a mr. cuban: you can ask tiff. >> you read on your tablet? mr. cuban: phone, tablet, newspapers. i could read them online but i and sorry for newspapers you just want something different. you don't want to always be staring at a screen. i don't get to read books as much as i would like to, so it is more content driven, online

relative to all the different topics i'm interested in. this project is teaching critical life skills, and impressive -- impressive prospect. what should he be reading? mr. cuban: that is not a fair question. read what gets you excited. that are no business books it is all you need to know. there is no one class, one thing that you can do that is just a shortcut. experience is literally the best teacher. as you dip your toes, or as you move forward with your endeavors and challenges, you recognize the things that are going to be a little bit more difficult. when i run into those difficulty theors, that is when

intensity goes up. what can i read? some people are more what can my mentor tell me? i need to be able to consume it and internalize it. i love to read biographies, people who have done things .efore like our presidents here i will still walk through bookstores and look for a magazine because if i find one idea or one thought, it is worth the five dollars or $10. you never know when that next idea -- that the lightbulb goes on. you have to keep that might open. >> one idea that you had the -- it isle of years is an app in your text disappears

on a 24 second shot clock. i know lots of people who could benefit from disappearing social media content. talk about the way we live our life so publicly now. -- cuban: with social media will begin on social media, we think our friends, our family, but then it kind of has spread. it gets bigger and our networks expand. point where all of a sudden your social media network says more about you than you realize and it may say things about you that you don't realize. at youro back and look facebook friends of friends, in this day and age, people hold you accountable for that. called expirep that allows me to go back and delete all my tweets. people don't need to see what you wrote two years ago.

there is just no point. when youyber dust, think about messaging this day and age, the minute you said a tech -- the minute you get sent on a text, e-mail, you don't own it anymore. if you are a visible person or someone with a lot of responsibility, there is a good chance that the person you're sending it to his keeping it. think about the consequences. they own it but you still have responsibility for it. it is scary. , many ofcourse of time us have thousands of tax that we have sent that might have seemed like the coolest, no problem at all. it is like the old seinfeld episode -- just old acquaintances.

sony owns the show "shark tank." so while the sony hack was going negotiationsre my were done on cyber dust, not on.ing that this was going every other employee of sony was frantic and scared but we were safe. that is called cyber dust and it is in the app store and you want to reach me, my username is mcuban. always selling. >> we have a room full of media here. you like to conduct interviews when you can the e-mail. why is that? there is reporters and opinion. , i learned early on

that what you say in an e-mail -- the full transcript may not be used and that is their job to try and create a story. having a full e-mail transcript has given me the chance to post on my blog the real story. now, i try to do more of this via cyber dust, so it is a digital version. historically, it was a live interview i would use e-mail to protect myself because you just don't know how media is going to take anything that you tell them. particularly in social endeavors, all it takes is one misstep or one misstatement of an interview and you are toast. if all you do is sit down and they have a table where -- this is where i thought -- this is what i thought you meant. as you have the ability to have all that context.

>> what advice you have by our scholars? mr. cuban: be honest about your time. it sounds so good to be a mentor and have a mentor. i was never a big mentor person, i was more like, get my hands dirty. it is hard to mentor 20 people or 30 people. be honest. as a young person looking for a mentor, realize that they don't live their lives to mentor you. it is a resource that is very valuable and make sure that it is a resource. there is also friendships and relationships that go with it better amazing. >> secretary spellings and i attended an event at microsoft years ago.

bill gates was asked about how we control to schedule and he said he has steve ballmer check it and cross check it. what advice do you have about the way you commit your time and build your schedule? mr. cuban: i have somebody who runs my life who does my schedule. but i don't commit so far in advance simply because i still think the best is yet to come. i am still excited about all of the opportunities that are in bringof me, so i want to -- i don't want to preclude myself from something. like i said, i am such a strong believer in the american dream, such a strong believer that today is the youngest you will ever be and you have to live like it. i'm a strong believer that the best is yet to come for me.

if that is the case, i'm not going to lock anything in. >> we have 30 seconds. many in our scholars asked, what is the next big thing? thing is: the next big a big center for the mavs. i would say personalized medicine. our bodies basically our equations and esther peterson get faster and faster we begin to understand more -- and as computers get faster and faster, we begin to understand more about them. i son jake, who is five, maybe it will be what he has kids. but the concept of walking into a drugstore in buying over-the-counter medicine that has a warning that you might be hmuck thatlucky scm dies from this will seem barbaric.

little bit of blood into a complete analysis in seconds. as we learn more and more about the wondrous body that we have and all the variables that are in it, we will be able to more certainly determine what it takes to cure. that is going to create a folder set of questions that are bigger than me. all these discussions we have about the cost of medicine, people try to pretend years out, they are wrong. there will be people like you that will invent even better ways. >> thank you again to the movie foundation and mark cuban -- the

>> near the end of the month,

we'll be covering to book festivals on the same weekend from our nation's heartland it is the wisconsin book festival in medicine. -- in madison. and then, the boston book festival. then we will be in portland oregon for wordstock. at the end of november, we are live from florida for the miami book fair international for the 18 fear. that is a few of the festivals this fall on c-span two's book tv. >> the presidential leadership scholars program is currently run i-4 presidential libraries. george h.w. bush, george bush, bill clinton, and lyndon johnson. they spoke about leadership, decision-making, and the 2016 residential campaign. -- presidential campaign.

>> it is to my privilege to announce three leaders that have stepped into the arena in a global scale. i have upmost admiration for them. she will be moderating the conversation. two leaders who i had the privilege of serving under as my commanders in chief. two leaders for whom we have all learned valuable lessons on leadership and life. it is my honor to introduce you to the 42nd and 43rd president's , president william j clinton, and president george w. bush. [applause]

mr. bush: i know two people who are glad he's not running for president. i. cuban: i --mr. clinton: two who- i know would have been glad earlier. >> i thought you were going to be the highlight of the program. mr. clinton: -- >> welcome back to the bush center. it has been a delight to work , especiallyam valerie alexander, stephanie, mike.

mr. clinton: everybody knows that you were the spark plug that made this happen and we will be glad to be asked to help . it exceeded my wildest dreams. thank you for giving us a chance to do something that i think is of lasting importance. without further into -- it seems like just yesterday that josh bolten was sitting in my place in washington watching this program. .- launching this program here we are graduating this class. let me start by talking about the importance of you working together. you both have the opportunity to spend some time with scholars. have you thought of them as you have gotten to know them? what's the breath -- what impressed you, what surprised you? mark said something very interesting in that he runs

into pessimistic people about the future of the country. i understand that. but when you meet these scholars, you can't be pessimistic. these are really find people who inspire hope. clinton and i are getting a little long in the tooth these days. mr. clinton: this is the one month of the year when he is older than me, so speak for yourself. i am a month longer in the tooth. i guess when you get longer and on,two and as society moves there is a tendency to be, for some, to be pessimistic. i advice is, hang out with the scholars. think that the one thing that i found particularly interesting about

-- i liked it when they were admitted, but when i read more about their specific projects and were preparing -- and when we were preparing to they don't just look different and think different, they have different skills. to think that we have this much talent in this much innovation going into so many different aspects of our national life, i am like you, i don't get people who are down our future. i would rather be america looking ahead to what i think the world will look like in 20 or 30 years. i like our chances. we are younger than every big country but china. if they hadn't changed their one child policy, we would be younger than china. if we get good immigration reform which you tried to do and

what you hope i get, we will stay young. otherwise, we will have to encourage that young woman who works for you that i met today to have more babies. i like our chances. besides all the other advantages, it is the people that matter. as long as what really matters we can come together. i almost cried when i saw that picture of the south carolina legislature yesterday with republicans and democrats and african-americans and white people embracing each other. the decisive speech made by a woman who was a direct descendent of jefferson davis. don't tell me that we can get together across the line.

ms. spellings: as you know, these scholars have had an opportunity to study your decisions through the case study approach as well as those of george h.w. bush and lbj. take a minute and talk about your decision-making process. when it is time to decide and getyou move on and not totally tied in knots over your decision. first of all, i think knowing what it is time to decide is the big deal. question, you have to know what all is going on and what kind of decision you are making. that is, if you make it is -- if you make a mistake, isn't it irreparable. able tohen you might be

take a little more time. there are other decisions where there is a decision that is 70% right today is better than a decision that is 100% right six months from now when the train has left the station. i always ask myself, are the consequences correct? whenever we were getting ready to bomb somebody, sometimes my advisors would say that if you don't do this today, you will look weak. we will look so weak. i always said, can i kill him tomorrow? you are laughing, but think about this. if the answer is yes, i can kill him tomorrow, let's debate whether we can do it today. on the other hand, there are those decisions that you literally will paralyze yourself

. waiting for six months to get at 100% right is foolish. i think that to make the best decisions, you have to have people know things you don't know who tell you what you don't want to hear and you have to have a sense when the time has come to decide. mr. bush: a lot of wisdom there. , the circumstance they it really imperative you decide and decide decisively. i get the thing that dominated by administration was an enemy that wants to kill again. therefore, i had to make decisions that protected the homeland. that was my goal. some of the decisions that i had to make need to be made fairly quickly because the enemy still

exists -- the enemy that sadly still exists doesn't really care whether a president agonizes over a decision or not. anyway, i think the most important point for the scholars is to know what you don't know. sometimes the tendency is to say that i must know everything. if i didn't, i wouldn't be so powerful. you don't. it is essential that you know yourself first and find people who are capable of fighting through all the trappings of power. i will give you some good advice people that i don't think would have served by administration of thought -- if they thought their primary job

was to make me look good. jake has talked about strategy and principal really important. the environment is such that the sycophants aren't allowed in. they told me to use some big words. -- spellings: mr. clinton: this is the point where i reach my back pocket to make sure my billfold is still there. [laughter] ms. spellings: president bush.

mr. bush: yes. readpellings: the scholars your father spoke about relationships and building relationships. mr. bush: why didn't they read my? ms. spellings: they did. but they talked about his letter writing and development of relationships over many years, not just when you need something but over time. talk about what they should learn from your dad and how you all have developed relationships. one of thegsmr. bush: relationships that i described was theook called "41" relationship that bill had with my dad. losing an election wasn't fun. one, and heyou lost lost one to him. they ended up having a friendship. how does it happen?

people who they think of bitter enemies from the political arena are able to put aside victory and defeat. i think that in dad's case, that winning and losing an election was not the most central thing in his life. the most central things in his life turned out to be his faith and his family. it makes it much easier to deal with disappointments on a daily occurrence of life. secondly, it helped a lot that the bill was so gracious. i find that relationship to be instructive. one of my favorite stories, for those of you haven't heard this and didn't read the first book i wrote, was when i introduced

pugin to barney -- introduced putin to barney. barney was our scottish terrier. his body lang would basically said, you call that a dog? to the extent that it hurt my feelings i didn't let them know. a year later, yes i wanted to meet his dog. a giant russian hound. putin looks at me and says bigger, stronger, and faster than barney. you could take umbrage with something like that. the point of the story is, i learned a lot about putin then. it is instructive. the lesson is, listen carefully to what others say. don't prejudge their sentiments, and let them speak. was a great personal diplomat

because he listens to the other person a lot. ms. spellings: president clinton, when you were with the scholars in little rock, you said that if you don't have respect for your adversary, you don't believe the other guy is or means to do right, then you are not going to get very far with them. what are some of the ways that you have worked to understand the other person's point of view? mr. clinton: i think i said this when we had the opening with all these folks. ms. spellings: the launch. mr. clinton: anyway, my family raised me to believe in a storytelling culture and i couldn't tell wanted to like that listen to one and reiterate. one of the most enduring stories of my childhood was my eighth grade science teacher who was not an attractive man telling me that none of us would ever

remember anything in it great science. we should remember this. he said, every day i get up and i start the day in the bathroom putting shaving cream on, shaving, and washing my face. i look in the mirror and say, vernon, you are beautiful. he said, you remember this. everyone wants to believe they are beautiful and if you remember that, it will take you a long way. i have tried to remember that. this is one other quick example. the loss of trust is paralyzing in this country and this world. , thears ago this fall prime minister of israel was murdered by a fellow israeli because he presided over the first big handover of land in the west bank to palestinian's.

the whole thing was nearly screwed up because one of the maps they were signing said a road belongs to israel that arafat thought was his. i told him to go in and fix it and figure out what the truth was. said,alked out and he he's right, that road should be here. it was a road to jericho around the christian monument. do.id, what are we going to said, you realize the siamese maps and they belong to israel as a matter of international law. arafat, for all of his false -- for all of his flaws, said these are worth more than any written contract. you cannot imagine somebody doing that today.

. if everyone trusts each other, anything is possible. if they don't, is very hard to get anything done. for both of you, the lbj library did a terrific job and their scholars have the opportunity to learn about communication. lbj is well known for his physical presence and his relentless style and so forth. they listened to the tapes him talking in real time to martin luther king and others when negotiating the voting rights act. talk about your persuasive style and how you adapted to a particular situation when -- a particular situation. when to push, when to hold, when to fold. first of all, you have to know who you are trying to persuade. when i was working with other

, i neverders consciously made an argument for what was in america's interests. i always told them that what i thought was right for america was in their interest. words, these other people aren't hired on to help you, they are hired on to help their people. whenever you're arguing with someone else, at first it proves you listened to them. you should always make the argument in terms of their interest. in congress, i tried to figure out there was anything they wanted that i could in good conscious give them. if there was, i did it. sometimes we were right at the border of the definition of in good conscience. there is a reason they said the two things people should never

watch being made our sausage and laws. i think it was a mistake to get rid of these earmarks because it is harder for the president to argue. sometimes i think congress is better than federal employees what the best way to spend money is. anyways, it is different for different conditions, but first you have to be able to listen to who you are trying to persuade and see how you can respond on the merits or changing the subject. president bush, i want to do this for years and you are very good at it -- i watched you do this for years and you were very good at it. that it is think important to earn capital to spend capital. rememberwords, i can on the tax cut plan trying to get out of the recession, that i

would go to a state where i had -- awell politically democratic senator in nebraska, and endangered species. i went to his state. i flew him down on air force one as i recall. i did a tax cut event with him there. trying to get his vote, and we got its. is, you can earn capital all kinds of ways in the political process. there are some people that are just not going to vote with you at all. it is frankly important not to waste your time. but i think it is important to create an environment among those that are less likely to vote for you of cordiality. when the most unique relationships is ted kennedy.

there are some issues we can agree on. i tried to convince them on what issues. you have to know the people you are dealing with. republicans were generally easy for me to work with. particularly when i was riding high. a little bit more of a challenge after 2006. it turns out that if you are polite, kind, considerate, they are much more likely to listen to you. ms. spellings: what about on the international stage, that kind of persuasive -- what we were watching the debate and negotiations on the deal right now. talk about the use of that persuasive style and an international setting.

there has been a lot of persuasiveness going on by the time your president. as we have a national security council. generally, the issues are pretty cooked by the time you get there . always. lesson is to never negotiate rates of advisor and less you are the one providing the advisor. you always want somebody playing your hand. positionot myself in a i have to get back to my principal. always go principle to principle. never do a principal with a non-principal.

i'm kind of avoiding your question. ms. spellings: i will move on. mr. bush: i had 26 meetings with less. one-on-one more or every one of them started with, how is your family. laura and i went to his house, that his girls. he loves to talk about his kids and his daughters i always started out with our your daughters doing? the whole purpose is to create a connection. then we get to the issues at hand. ms. spellings: one of our scholars observes that you have an authentic friendship. you spend time together and .eally enjoy it i know you know some of the folks that are running for president. the question is, what are your

that theyn the way can elevated discourse so that it is foundational for governing and tells of stories from the campaign trail. mr. bush: i think the discourse byerally is lowered surrogates. the internet is a brutal place these days for political figures because there is a high degree of anonymity. people can say whatever they want to say and it kind of becomes currency. jeb and i am confident that secretary hillary will delegate the -- will elevate the discourse. i can't attest to their surrogates. i can attest to this surrogate

but i am not going to be a surrogate. i think the american people expect some sharp elbows in the campaign. i think that what really discourages them post campaign is the inability to govern in a way that is congenial. hopefully that will change. it tends to go in cycles, by the way. mr. clinton: i might be naive. they say you get naive when you get long in the tooth. but i think that they ought to have these debates in the republican primary in democratic primary. i think that -- i expected to be very vigorous in the primary and

whoever wins the primaries will have a hard debate. they need to keep in mind that what we are to do is to take the advantages america has a mark cuban talked about it, we are well-positioned, that we can solve the problem that is bedeviling the world, that is to create so many jobs and we can have shared prosperity. without to show respect for the debate by trying to be as specific and clear as we can about the policy choices before us. we can trust the american people by saying look, it is not that simple. if it were simple, we would have already done it. these are the things that we think are important and this is what we will do about it. i think the more we can keep it -- on thatthe last

and the less -- i see in the media today a culture of anger and resentment. we have to kind of rise above anger to answers. if you get this job, i can tell you, the next day, it doesn't matter what was wrong with your opponent in the election. you are on your own. you walk in there and you have no but he the desk with you. have to show up to work and make decisions. i hope we clarify for the american people that this is a big bunch of choices. they are not simple but we can do it. the quality of these young assetsand the inherent and the system that we have proves it. we've got a lot of tough decisions to make.

that is all i care about, besides who i would like to win. [laughter] the more important thing for america is we know what the heck we are deciding on and we make a good decision. moderator: we are about to graduate these scholars. what advice do you have for them as they return to their communities? you heard jake's call to action. what is your advice? president bush: don't watch a lot of tv. moderator: read, like mark cuban. president bush: actually act. do things. don't be afraid of failure. i'm not worried about this crowd. president clinton: i agree with that. say, ifr thing i would what ever it is doesn't work out, get up. i lost two elections. i was the youngest former governor in american history after the reagan landslide. i had one guy appointed to the cabinet walk across main street in little rock to avoid being

seen shaking hands with me. that was a humbling experience. [laughter] realize,ou've got to there is no personal ambition you have which can be extinguished by anybody else. you by giving up your .reams can extinguish them if it doesn't work out exactly like you intended, it will take you someplace interesting, and he will make a difference. my advice is, don't be afraid to fail, but you probably will, whether you are afraid to or not. it's scary. you've just got to get up. the world belongs to tomorrow, not yesterday. don't give anybody else

permission to take your life away. keep wishing and keep given. never make the perfect the enemy of the good. never think, what i'm doing is too little. that is not true. do something every day. someday, for all of us, it will be our last day. what will matter is all the steps we took along the way and what they amounted to, not the home run we hit on day x. i wish you well. [applause] do you want to add to that? president bush: i was stuck on that someday may be your last day line. i thought that was pretty profound. [laughter] moderator: this is maybe a good set up for this question. our scholars have said that they were surprised by both of you, that you were not what they expected.

president bush: one of them thought i couldn't read. [laughter] president clinton: another one thought i could. [laughter] how do you react to that with respect to the filter media and bf -- the what to that means for them as they try to present their true selves and have people understand who they are, know their hearts? president bush: i don't know. i think we are both confident people, and if people don't get us, what we are all about, you've just got to keep moving on. i try not to worry about it. i can't tell you the number of people who have told me to meet tallersay, you are a lot than i thought you were. moderator: i'm not sure if that is something -- [laughter] president bush: i've been 5'11"

since 18. image's image. if you have a set of beliefs you are willing to defend, image doesn't matter. people say things about you all the time, but if that is the criteria for success for you, go into the fetal. president clinton: i would also say -- if you cover political realize it'se to in the nature of things -- conflict is better news than concourse. even though cooperation works better than conflict, if that is all you put on the evening news at night, you would go broke. the nature of the evening news will be to make people into two benchmark cartoons instead of three-dimensional people. it's just the nature of the beast.

you need to always keep your caution light burning in the back of your head. is,so think the nature let's suppose we were in a campaign against each other. he would have his narrative. i would have mine. we would try to convince you that our narrative was better than the others. that's ok. the people covering the campaign, they develop a narrative, too. for theost impossible real story to be the same as the storyline. it is hard for the american people to be well-informed if the storyline swamps the real story. you have to keep all that in mind as you try to be good citizens and still show up. the most important thing is showing up. moderator: we want some people to show up for the second class

of scholars, and we are launching recruitment today. people can apply, those who are watching via livestream, at presidentialscholars.org. for those pondering application to this awesome program, what advice do you have for those seeking a spot? female those who have just gone through it and see if it is worth your time. there is no better testimony then people getting ready to walk across the stage. i'm sure they would be more than willing to share their stories, or go to our websites. don't you think it's a good idea? moderator: i think it's an excellent idea. what advice would you have? how should people distinguish -- [laughter] i thought you were going to have more stories. president clinton: we are at the bottom of the barrel of questions. president bush: why don't we

just get the graduation going? moderator: first, i have to ask you about being a grandparent. you are about to have a second grandchild. president clinton: when we did this the first time, when we did this program, he said to me, when you become a grandfather, you fall in love all over again. that is what happened. hillary and i have our granddaughter for three days. here, and hillary was ecstatic. [laughter] candidate for anything. she was grandmother of the year. last night, my grandmother -- granddaughter for the first time when i walked in her room, she -- somebody said, there is your granddad, and pointed at me. that is worth more than anybody ever paid me or did for me.

everything you said about it is true. president clinton: last night -- president bush: last night, my granddaughter spoke to me in mandarin. [laughter] moderator: i think that's the end of the program, i think. everybody, please join me in thanking the two grandfathers. [applause] president clin iraq nuclear agreement.

highway funding expires at the end of next month. we will talk about all that with stephen dennis, who covers the senate rollcall. "washington journal live with headlines, phone calls -- "washington journal" line with headlines, phone calls and tweets at 7 a.m. eastern. >> the house and senate returned to their summer recess later this week and get right to work on the iran nuclear agreement. set to cover that debate is laura lopez, who covers congress for "huffington post.

the democrats are pretty confident that they will pass this bill -- past this deal. so far, they are just a few shot of the number needed to filibuster. if they want to filibuster the revolution -- the resolution of disapproval. the debate will be started on tuesday and it looks like even if it does pass the senate, that democrats will have the vote to sustain a presidential veto. >> one of the votes they won't cardin, the ranking member, who wrote about his offices -- regret his opposition friday. he says that -- oppositionn cardin's -- or does it change the nature of the debate? >> i think that senator cardin's

opposition embodies a difficult this issue has been for all of the senators, all of the congress members, every single person whether they come out for it or against it has said this has been the most difficult decision he had to make as a lawmaker. didn't really know what was going to go. now he is the third democrat on top of senator schumer and senator bob menendez to say he is going to vote against deal. i don't think that the administration is going to be sweating into much because of the fact that they know they have the votes in the senate to sustain a veto. >> let's took it -- let's take a look at the house. earlier, nancy pelosi sent out a letter about getting everybody on board to support the ironic deal -- the iran deal. they taken up in the house on tuesday evening. what does the debate look like

in the house, and who will some of the floor leaders be there. >> the house is a bit more fluid right now. you mentioned by minority leader pelosi did say that they have well over 100 democrats that have come out in support of the deal. 146 and to sustain a presidential veto. they are not quite there yet. they have a very aggressive over the august recess to make sure that they are trying to get the support that they need. it is going to be very interesting next week. >> let's go back to the senate for a second. one thing we didn't touch on was the potential for democrats to be able to filibuster and be able to prevent this from coming to a final vote. i think the number they are talking about was 41.

they just need a couple more. our democratic leaders in the senate indicating at all that they might have the ability to stop that from coming to a final vote? >> because they are so close to the 41 number, it would be interesting to see if they decide to do that. people and senator durbin's office have said that democrats aren't planning to filibuster and senator joe manchin, who is one of the undecideds still left , said that he would not support a filibuster. the restaurant decided because it is such an intense debate. >> laura barron lopez covers congress for "huffington post." thanks for the update. our coverage of the iran nuclear agreement continues tomorrow morning with former vice president dick cheney, who said

the agreement will result in iran getting nuclear weapons. he speaks at the american enterprise institute tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. at 10:00 a.m., senate minority leader harry reid explains why he supports the deal and why he thinks it will prevent iran from getting a. he is taking from the carnegie endowment for national peace live on c-span. a senator on the other side of the issue, republican lindsey graham, speaks at the national press club about why he opposes the deal. now that is live on c-span at 1:00 p.m.. at 5:00 p.m., the house rules resolutiononsiders 64, the resolution that declares congress disapproves of the iran nuclear agreement. that meeting is at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow live on c-span3.

zi, a was a noa concentration camp commandant, and he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. teege on theer discovery that her grandfather was the concentration camp commandant. person -- he was capable -- he had two dogs and he trains them. -- there was a pleasure that he felt when he killed people and this is

something that, when you are normal and you don't have this aspect of your personality, it .s very difficult to grasp >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." >> up next on c-span, a conversation on online data collection and civil liberties. we will hear from officials with the department of homeland security, the justice department, amazon, and academia. >> it is my pleasure to welcome you to tonight's event. it is how technology impacts civil liberties. a topic that i tackle in my own work at nyu law school and cdt. in a recent book entitled

"intellectual privacy," our most basic privacy is the freedom of thought. that is the freedom to explore, investigate, ponder talk about , new ideas, including ideas that are unpopular or controversial. freedom of thought it is at the core of our civil liberties. without it there is little substance to other cherished liberties. not only freedom of speech, but also the right to vote, assemble, protest, freedom of speech, and government decision-making influence. technology has an obvious impact on the freedom of thought. when we once relied on a small circle of acquaintances to try out new ideas we are now hard , rest to imagine intellectual activities of any kind that do not depend on the internet, large databases, search engines, social media, cloud computing the list goes on. , in light of these and other new technologies we clearly need open public discourse about how technology impacts our daily

lives and civil liberties. i would like to thank townhall, seattle for this expansive slate of civil issues. it is a model i would hope to see in more cities across america. the center for debt -- the center for democracy and technology is a perfect partner for townhall in this endeavor. cdt, in my completely unbiased opinion as a board member, is the leading american nonprofit translating democratic values for the digital age. you will get a chance to hear from the cdt president, nuala o'connor. what most impresses me is her ability to find her way through -- to find workable solutions in the highly partisan and often combative landscape in washington, d.c. they recognize that policy requires genuine civic discourse and that must include citizens, the government and business sectors. before i introduce your moderator for tonight and turn the program over to our incredibly distinguished group

of panelists, i briefly want to address one issue that i believe is among the most important as we consider the impact of technology on our core civil liberties, the issue of voter privacy. it is now commonplace for political campaigns to assemble and maintain extraordinarily detailed dossiers on every american voter. these contain hundreds, even thousands of political data points. not surprisingly, some of this information is derived from voter registration records. but they also by data from commercial databases. they use cookies and other commercial tracking methods to profile their supporters. did you know that in the last presidential election both campaigns hired marketing firms to help them match cookie pools? in other words a database of , active and targetable cookies with political dossiers to

persuadable most voters and send them targeted ads anywhere they might show up on the web? or that the obama technical team developed a targeted sharing outreach program that matched political data with facebook profiles so that obama supporters could persuade their friends to vote for obama. the jury is still out on whether these techniques are effective, but many americans might be shocked to learn how candidates target them without their knowledge or consent. in my own work, i have raised two fundamental questions about these and data-driven campaign practices. first, does this relentless profiling and micro-targeting of american voters invade their personal privacy? second, how do these new practices affect democracy? many political theorists have observed how privacy, understood as a legally protected zone or preserve in which individuals can think their own thoughts, have their own secrets, live their own lives and reveal only what they want to the outside

world is vital to the working of the democratic process. so, what happens to democracy when campaigns routinely invade this zone by subjecting voters to a form of surveillance in which their preferences are monitored and tracked? this is just one of many profound questions we need to address when thinking about the implications of new technologies. i can name other troubling issues that we should also consider, ranging from discriminatory credit, insurance, and hiring practices and the surreptitious collection of data and use of data analytics to so-called predictive policing. police departments identifying and stopping suspects based less on specific information on an individual conduct at a time and on algorithmse that reveal patterns of imminent

or future criminal conduct. i will leave it to the panel to take this discussion forward. it is my pleasure to introduce tonight's moderator, jenny durkan. i will also last the panel to be seated. jenny durkan, washington native and graduate of gw law school, served as the western attorney of the district of washington through 2014. in this role she was the chief federal law enforcement officer for western washington, responsible for civil litigation and criminal prosecutions and coordination of various federal investigative agencies. she also chaired key department of justice committees and workgroups charged with crafting strategies for cybercrime, intellectual property enforcement, and consumer privacy. her leadership for the doj on these fronts include testifying before congress on national cyber issues.

since leaving this post, jenny has continued to practice law as a partner in the washington, d.c. office of quinn emanuel. please join me in welcoming jenny durkan. [applause] ms. durkan: thank you very much. thank you for that great introduction, but mostly for your leadership in this space. you have been a true national leader on many of these issues. and we will not be tracking you all night. what a great pleasure it is to be here at town hall. this is one of the best forms we have in seattle to talk about these things. i could not have been more honored to moderate these forums on what i think is one of the most critical issues that we face as a society. i think that the intersection of technology in all parts of our lives will raise fundamental questions about the role the privacy plays in our lives and what is important to protect. i cannot think of a better panel

to do this with. to my immediate right is ryan calo. he is a professor at the university of washington law school. he comes by way of stanford and is probably one of the leading people in the areas of privacy , but also in robotics. just an acceptable -- just an exceptional thinker. when i was u.s. attorney and i wanted to turn to the people i looked to in academia to figure out those complicated questions, i would regularly have him on my speed dial. thank you for being here. [applause] and we are really lucky to have raquel russell, not just on this panel, but to be a recent relocater from the other washington to washington. she really focus on urban issues. when i had the good fortune to travel back and forth between seattle, d.c. and doj, whenever , there was a issue related to this people would say -- there is this woman in the white house

who could really help you. she relocated to seattle and is now at zillow. we are really fortunate to have her because she can really look at the policy imprecations around these issues. [applause] and the woman who we could spend a lot of time introducing, nuala o'connor has accomplished so much, you would think she has got to be 80. [laughter] she is now president and ceo of of cdt and is taking it to the next natural iteration to be a thought leader and one of those places where all people can sit at the table to decide the right policy initiatives to undertake in these areas. she has got great experience at one of our great companies here. amazon. she worked at ge and she took her experience from that sector and applied it to homeland security. she has seen the range of issues. cdt is one of those places where

i was on a number of inter-agency panels in washington and they were trying to decide how to broker these tough issues in terms of what technology should have in terms of the ability of government to intercept and the like. no one has even talk to each other sometimes on these issues and cdt plays a critical role in letting people broker those things and having this real vision of the importance of technology, so thank you for being here. [applause] hopefully this will be a kind of conversation style, but when we kick it off i want to ask different questions, bouncing back and fourth. we will reserve some time to take questions from the audience. thank you for being here. we know it is warm. one of the first things, this is not jeopardy. i don't get to have the music. but first we will do a lightning round. i am going to ask each of the

panelists to name what they think is one of the most exciting new technology and then also to say whether they think of the biggest threat to privacy is coming from government or from private enterprise. so, ryan, let's start with the most exciting new technology? prof calo: you will not be surprised to hear that i think that robotics is the most exciting new technology. [laughter] i will give you my reason for that. currenthink about the technology of our time, the internet and you think about how , the internet came to be so dominant, think of its history. there was the arpanet, a u.s. military initiative that wound up funding the initial internet and then it was a public private partnership. and that very same group of people have moved over to darpa and are investigating robotics heavily. i think we were on this initial curve.

>> i think that the thing that i am fascinated by is just the quick advancement of social media, generally. facebook feels like he just started a year ago, the blink of an eye, and now we have snapchat, periscope, the way that the newer generations are using these social media platforms to connect is a fascinating thing. it is happening so quickly that it is so hard to keep track of. >> at cdt we are interested in technology and your daily life. i will pick not only technology, but a device. as a single working mother, my hands are literally and figuratively full. i wanted to set a timer for what i was cooking. i thought i needed my amazon echo. who has one? thank you. in my completely unbiased opinion, i have a little bit of bias having worked on the

product when i was there. it is the kernel of your star trek computer for your health. if anyone is a big star trek fan, as i am, my vision for technology is a positive one. we will move towards integration and tolerance, fueled and supported by technology that supports democratic values, but on a more literal level, i love this device. it has a great home manager. it can tell me anything it talks , to me. at least there is someone at home who will listen to me now. it has never happened before, right? i commend to you the privacy policies that had something to do with those. >> i will say that the thing that has changed my life the most recently is the starbucks app. you can order it just go pick it up. it is critical for survival. i'm going to skip it. i said i would talk about the government, but let's first talk

-- what is, in your mind, the biggest single thing -- you can do more later -- what has the biggest potential to erode our privacy without us knowing it? >> anything? the creeping intrusion or presumption that all of your data should be easily accessible by your government. whenever government that is. state, local, federal, this sense -- i have worked on this issue of the digital self, that one has boundaries between you and the other, you and your family you and your , institutions, religious, educational, governmental. and i believe that we have gone too far in the balance of power between the self and the state. my biggest concern -- yes, there are real concerns about governments, companies, we can talk all about them, but this eroding of the sense of a clear boundary around my digital self in relationship to my government is very concerning to me. if you look at the history of

list making and governments knowing who you are and what you are thinking -- i love that reference to neil richards's work, i need to have a safe and sacred space -- a place where i can express myself without assuming that that will end up in the hands of the government. >> raquel, what do you think? ms. russell: it is the culture shift that is happening of what is ok to be shared and not ok to be shared. everyone's baseline of privacy is constantly shifting and shifting at a high rate at this point. to me, i think that as that baseline shifts, will policy be able to keep up with the cultural shift? prof. calo: mine is much more pedestrian. i think that facial recognition changes everything. i don't know if you guys noticed, i took a flash photo of

you, i apologize that and i am going to tweet it later and i'm going to say that it went well at town hall. if you think about the fact that facebook has technology that can recognize your face, even if it is obscured, suddenly the corporation or the government or whatever it happens to be can scour the entire internet and private databases and just find you. find you where you are. even if you yourself did not upload anything. even if you took pains to of to obscurekewer -- your face. i know it is something that cdt has worked on quite a lot. >> good segue. we talk about -- and i think it is very important about the surrender of self to government and what is on balance, i was at a panel once with brad smith and i said -- look, brad, you want us to just have to buy it from you.

so, what is the bigger threat to personal privacy? is it the information that government is collecting? or is it the information that every device that you collect that gets aggregated is the larger threat right now? prof. calo: the classic arguments for why the government is the biggest threat are two. one, the government has a monopoly on violence. no matter what facebook does to you, turns out they cannot kill you or throw you in jail. but i wonder if that is at the end of the day really not just -- not disingenuous, but is it a full enough answer? corporations can make decisions that affect your lives in short and wide ways. it is conceivable. the second argument that you always hear is that at least with corporations you understand , their incentives, they just want to make money, whereas the government has this mercurial, mixed incentive where you are

not totally sure how they are going to do things, perhaps differently in a new regime. personally, i don't know which is the greater threat. >> i will selfishly say, as someone who was a government employee for over 10 years and with the data breach they just recently happened for many government employees, i would have to say the government. it is really scary to think that they have so much information on me personally, given the job that i had and the information i had to provide to get those jobs. for all of those government for all of those government employees whose information was stolen, that's pretty scary, a pretty scary thing. ms. o'connor: i'm going to show my age here, with three major companies i can remember right now, the answer without a doubt to me is the federal government. but let me tell you why.

i think you are right, we have all talked about it for a long time. i was doing deeper thinking knowing that you would ask this earlier today and the flippant answer is because the government can put you in jail because of the monopoly on violence and deprivation of rights, liberty, access to services and etc. your recourse in voting against government activity, privacy, is to vote with your feet and change countries, which seems to me a very draconian response. your answer is voting against the company's practice by not doing business with that company. but there is another answer as well that i had not thought of before, and this is not to let companies off the hook. some are doing good work, others are not, but there is a government backstop. when there is an outlier or misbehavior by a company, there is the ftc, the state's attorney general. i was on the receiving end of 12 attorney general investigations,

21 class actions, and an ftc investigation for data merger that never happened. but again, i really do go to the deprivation of rights and liberties. you are absolutely right, the opportunity for hidden decision-making and opportunities cost and lost by a consumer not knowing about the data presented to them is very real and those are just some of the issues we are working on at cdt. prof calo: by way of support, those things, those companies can make promises to you about privacy. they will not do x, y, and see. and if they do that and said they would not, the federal trade commission will enforce

it. if x, y, and z however is not getting your information to the government, which some companies say -- if they don't do that, right? if they don't for phil that promise, the government is not going to police against it. give to the doj, it's fine. the ftc is not going to enforce a promise by a company against itself, essentially. ms. o'connor: just to build on that violent agreement all night long, and we should mix it up and probably will, but the opportunity for an individual to again, to correct that wrong or complain about that, it is very hard to make that case to the government, as you point out, when they have got the data and it is not known and that transparent. i was also a victim of the opm breach, as many of us were.

the compelling issue is the one of government collection of data and the impact to your relationship to the government and the company. it is the bleeding and blurring of lines, the potential lack of clarity or boundaries between private sector data sets that were collected mostly with your knowledge. that would be a big theme in your direct to company advocacy. minimization, is it relevant to your relationship to the company, and the blurring of the lines that erodes trust in the government and the companies as well. that issue of government data collection erodes the whole ecosystem of the government and trust in my ability to transact with companies and speak my mind. ms. durkan: i'm going to moderate and jump in a little bit. when i was chief federal law enforcement officer the government used its powers to collect information in the criminal setting.