mr. shah: i have no personnel announcements to make at this time. >> how much longer can the secretary effectively work in the administration? mr. shah: as i said, no personnel. information > you have said that from mr. netanyahu has begun informing france and germany administrators that the u.s. is likely to pull out of the iran deal. can you tell us about that? mr. shah: the president has been clear since january. he has gone back years and says it is the worst agreement unites states has made internationally. thes consistent both that congressional level and with european partners. if changes aren't made, the president is prepared to potentially withdraw from the agreement. john.

john: in light of these announced expulsions of russian intelligence agents, is the --

>> good evening, everyone. can you hear me? good. name is edgar dolby, the executive director here at arena stage, and i would like to think i have the best job in the world. one of the reasons is that we get to introduce new programs that we have with arenas forum, civil dialogue. we asked a question whether that is actually possible in this day and age, and it all started with the across the table lunch with if this were our play, he would be our playwright, and he would also be our director h is really welcome here at

arena stage. we like to think we are in the empathy business. i ask it every board meeting -- what is your business? i think building empathy during we have a number of core values from your command at the top of that list is learning in the rehearsal. and youehearsal hall are meant to take risks, you're meant to be generous, be prepared to step into another character's shoes and to work on telling a story. so it seemed to be the idea that we get together and we have some .onversation starters we have been engaged in a very civil way in looking at an opposite part of you -- point of

view. it seems to be a natural fit for us at arena stage. so this is the first in the arena stage forums. we are test driving the idea. we have two more that are scheduled third that information is at the back of your program here. but it is meaningful to me that we are able to do this on monday nights. monday nights -- there are no performances, so we should light the place up. well, i am hoping that we light the place on monday nights on many occasions around such an important purpose as engaging in civil dialogue around difficult issues. he does not really need any introduction. his very brief resume is in the program.

i just want to say that i feel like i've made a new best friend. i certainly admire the fact that of have the generosity spirit to share your humanitarian ways with us and the fact you have assembled such a wonderful group to engage in this discussion. he must be a bit of a profit as well, because he knew that the topic for tonight would be so relevant. i know you wanted to pick something that was maybe not so hot and controversial, but it did not work out that way. [laughter] so let me get out of the way. please welcome my new dear friend. thank you. [applause] edgar, thank you very much indeed. it has been a true joy working with you. from the luncheon we had, the

whole idea was a long sentence. edgar and his staff turned it that is completely easy working together. meis also an opportunity for to speak to the arena staff. there is a lot of work that goes into an event like this. starters who are all extremely in demand and busy people. joiningall of you for to access the dialogue, i like to also say, edgar, we met our first marker, because this evening, we are going to be on c-span, which means our conversations are going to reach

way beyond this room. to model that people who come from different backgrounds, but people work for the government, people from the private sector, that people from academia, liberals -- do we have somebody who is not a liberal? variety ofich viewpoints, but i'm quite confident that we're going to a very civil dialogue to the theater for me is a magical where did you leave the world in which you live, a foral world, behind, and two hours, you can dance with thailand,and i" in and tonight, maybe you can leave

behind the world of confrontation and anger and inter-this magical world of dialogue. want to add one more thing, and that i will get out of the way. the way i see what is happening thethere, borrowed from court system, the advocacy models and employed for discussion of public policy, there i see in the court there are only two sides. very rarely third or fourth. presents the most stark, extreme points, emotional way they are positioned. , the nicesting person alive, he has a dog, he calls his mother every christmas

most some say he is the awful person that she does not have a cat and is not say hi to his father. position of justice and truth for real life. we have long said privacy is dead are being killed. they are recording your dinner conversations. on the other side we hear corporations are building safe havens for terrorists, even in the court. and out of this extreme again, some kind of reasonable position should arise. i think sovereign points or a good position. it is assumed that we have at least two major considerations.

we clearly have an alienable rights. and we clearly have a concern for the common good. for public safety, protection, public health. in conversations, and a good conversation will start by not assuming that one will trump the others and make all his way, but we have to .tart year, we can the hardly minimize the conflict. this is one of the biggest subjects of tonight's conversations. --want to ask our panelists are we failing to four in direction of securing surveillance? allowing high fire

encryption to not allow the government to do his job? where are we going? >> thank you so much. thank you, professor etzioni. i will be a good lawyer and answer the question with a question here. the question is -- is the balance appropriate between surveillance and privacy? i will push back a little bit on that. balance is perhaps the wrong -- our system of government is the one based around i think an agreement that we all have the best way to do things is where we have ambition checking ambition. this is the old gop or i used to work at the aclu. -- this is the old joke.

i used to work at the aclu. the attorneys on saturday night live would keep saying "checks and balances, checks and balances," and i think that is what we are all striving to look for. if it has hard and fast rules that ensure to the greatest extent possible law enforcement and the domestic activities of our military and services are focusing on individual circumstances where there is some indication of wrongdoing. a search warrant is the basic example of that that says you cannot really do anything unless you can say, articulate in a clear way with specific facts that what you are trying to do is based upon some predication, that it is based upon some real suspicion that th what you are going out to do is going to find something wrong.

again, the issue is -- you mentioned the word "reconcile." i think it is reconciliation. we are trying find ways or rehab effect of law and 5 -- law enforcement, but we have these primordial principles, these first principles that underpin our free society. so i wanted to bring two specific points. asked us to as racists of the question, which is -- how can we make things better? ways, i think there are two specific things that came to mind when oh's trying to think about that. . . was trying to think about that. if i were king of the world, and i do not want to get too wonky, but i would do a better job of

establishing policy legislation that is almost technology agnostic. what i mean by that is the s to focussystem tend on the state-of-the-art at the particular time. you know is a good example of that. if you look at police procedurals, most to go with think that you need a warrant to wiretapping phone -- which you do -- and you need a warrant to search emails -- which you actually don't in some cases. the reason for that is congress, when they were legislating on what is required for law enforcement to access female, congress was looking at a system where it was extremely expensive to store a males the cloud, the proto-cloud at that time. you are talking about in the tens of thousands of dollars for a gigabyte of information, whereas now that the cost of that is in cents. so the notion of someone having an entire decades' worth of

gmail sitting up there in a remote server, it did not occur or was not front of mine for lawmakers when they were doing that, and as a result, we have a system that does not protect at the rate but i think most of us would agree they should be. detected that has real-world -- be protected. .hat has real-world effects when we talk about reconciling surveillance and privacy, we used to be approaching it from a common frame of reference. in many cases, we are not, because we just don't know what has happened. we just had a case where this andally happened, again, email context, where a judge effectively said you have a first amendment right to look at the application materials for physical search warrants, but because an imo warrant isn't really a warrant, you do not have a first amendment right to look at the application

materials for an electronic communication search warrant. this is the case where the public's west to understand and define that public frame of reference that will allow us to appropriately reconcile surveillance and such as being stymied. example of howe i think, as you mentioned, we can be looking at ways to improve our policy in lawmaking. i will leave it at that. i look for to questions. >> thank you very much, and thank you, professor, for moderating this, and thank you to you all. i am impressed that there are so many folks here this evening. i cannot even get my own high school aged son to come down here. i hope he is watching c-span,

but i think he is probably playing video games right now. a really important set of topics, and i know that you, professor, has dedicated your scholarship to this question of a balance between the common good and individual rights. experience, those two things often our intentions, and i do not think there is any subject where that tension is more pronounced than in the area of government surveillance. my own career in the government, 20 plus years, most of that time as a federal prosecutor here in washington, and then several intelligence community, including of the national security agency, where i was general counsel. i come of these issues largely from a security perspective and from the government perspective. let me make three brief comments that i think and hope at least frame these issues from my perspective. the first of those observations really is that this is not a new

debate. it feels new at times because it is very salient in this current environment, but it really goes back to the founding of our country, you know, the imperative to perfect the common good and individual rights is embodied in the preamble to our constitution, which speaks of the necessity of providing for common defense on the one hand and the importance of securing weapons of liberty on the other hand. this goes back to our founding document. in fact some of the founders spoke of this being an ongoing process when they talked about the importance or the effort to create a more perfect union, not stating that this was an end sta te in and of itself but rather a process or a journey that we are on together as a nation. the constitutional matter -- and you are a bunch of lawyers here -- it is the fourth amendment that really captures this tension when it comes to government surveillance.

the important concept is reasonableness. of the the touchstone fourth amendment, as the supreme court has said. what is frustrating, i think, is -- what is reasonableness? you have had to become comparable with lawyers and citizens that it is a dynamic concept, it is fluid, it tends to be challenged by changes in technology. i think the main point i am front to make up the top is this debate has been going on since our founding. what is reasonable when it comes to government surveillance? 's second point i would make is there are no absolutes in this discussion. this idea of reasonableness, this embodied i feel that this is a balance. when it comes to privacy, there is no such thing as an absolute zone of privacy. ben franklin understood that his diary could be subject to being searched by the local constable as long as that constable followed the law and obtained the necessary judicial approval

for that search or was otherwise subject to the rule of law. so there is no such thing in our country as an absolute zone of privacy. similarly, there is no such thing as an absolute right to conduct surveillance. surveillance has always been , andct to the rule of law that is true, particularly with respect to law enforcement and the idea of getting a warrant to search a house, but it is also the, going back to at least 1970's and the importance of .ational security absolutes, and the surveillance is always subject to the rule of law. have we tilted too far? i would say we have gotten it about right. i think the balance is where it should be. context of aal

we have struggled to adapt to new technologies what comes to what is reasonable and when a warrant will be issued, but i think the fourth amendment has held up to the test of time. really importantly, and the national security context, when it comes to the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa. we renewed key pieces of that the post-snowden, post revelations that snowden has made about the law, and the law was effectively extended for several more years after a lengthy debate, and that extension, without any really significant changes to the law, reflects the will of the people and the notion that congress is determined, based on the will of the people, that we have got that balance about right when it comes to national security. the last point i will meet briefly as i do think there is an area we need to work much harder, and that is on cooperation between the government and technology communities. i think we have lost some of

that cooperation, and that cooperation will be critical in solving some of the key challenges we face, including encryption and cyber security because of the innovation in our technology community, and it needs to work better with government. with that, i stopped, and i look forward to your questions and the discussion tonight. >> how can we balance the values of liberty and security? we can translate the text, an original understanding of the constitution, into a technology and the age of nsa surveillance, what does the text say? that would work for the people, thousands of papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, but no warrants issued but upon probable cause, particularly describing the place to be searched or the person to be seized. what does that mean?

for a nonpartisan understanding, you must consult the interactive constitution, which is cohosted by the national constitution center in philadelphia, which i am honored to head. this amazing new app brings the top liberal and conservative lawyers together to describe 1000 words about what they agree about and what they disagree about. if you click on the fourth amendment, i want you to download this app. not now, because i'm speaking, but after the show, you will find the core meaning of the fourth amendment at the timing of the framing was to outline the general warrants and with the system that sparked the revolution. what were they? engines of tyranny who agents to assumed

break into the homes of citizens and rummage through their private diaries and papers in search of judicious libel criticizing the king or evidence they had not paid the hated boston tea taxes. john adams said at that moment the child, revolution, was born. so liberals and conservatives believe that any electronic searches today is, by definition, unreasonable and unconstitutional law and an aunt of the mud to liberty. cell phone surveillance, the supreme court is about to drive about the most important case for digital privacy in the 21st century. -- be government subpoena which is the man without warrant -- five months of our geolocation records? that is locations owned by the cloud, verizon or whoever our

provider is, and with these, we can use the movements of a suspected drug dealer and see that he was -- he was not suspected of selling drugs, he was suspected of stealing cell phones -- you cannot make this up. the government concluded by breaking into his cell phone records, but he was a cell phone theft. the objective of there was no valid warrant and said the search was unconstitutional. the supreme court do? aspredictions are as good yours, but i believe that this court will, by a strong bipartisan majority, hold that the search of our movements in public for a month is unconstitutional and unreasonable. to justices are likely emerge on the reasoning. neil gorsuch and the like are likely to say we own our

property rights could when we surrender them to a company, we have expectations of those records will not be misused without respect to terms of service, and as such, that is unconstitutional. the more liberal justices may hold that we have a next rotation of privacy on the whole, so when the government can reconstruct everything we can do for five months in public, it can confine the rallies we attend, >> and we do have an expectation of privacy in those movements just like the diary seized in the american revolution. that thet is inspiring court is willing, by often unanimous vote to translate the values of the fourth amendment to a world of new technologies. that creates lots of hard cases that remain. what about nsa surveillance? there, the nsa is seizing records that somehow than the past. we had no expectation of privacy

because of this doctrine called the third-party doctrine. voluntarilyen i surrender a record to a third party, i lose all expectation of privacy in that. were that to be the case, an age where all of our private diaries are stored on third-party servers, we would have no privacy. it is inspiring that conservative justices, as well as liberal ones are willing to strike down nsa surveillance like this and they have quoted 's final case. doing a noblere job translating these values and understanding into an age of new technologies when surveillance is ubiquitous and involves so much on our movements in public our it clearly violates mental privacy. right tos with the

engage in political dissent. what about facebook? what do we do in an age where mark zuckerberg has more power over who can read up our information than any supreme court justice. is latest privacy scandal for me asatest issue an observer. gained huge amounts of private data to cambridge analytical and that was used to send a targeted ads, not only in the 2016 campaigns, but to influence the brexit vote. citizens are realizing this is

not the government seizing our intimate thoughts and political preferences, and trying to suppress our dissent or push us into one camp or another, it is the private sector, yet the fourth amendment says congress it is not say, mark zuckerberg should make no law. the great constitutional challenge is to figure out what to do in an age where the powers of the platforms are not regulated by the constitution but they are exercising the power of constitutional officers. those answers are not easy, but the fact that zuckerberg said regulations may not be necessary, that europe is about to pass the most significant privacy regulation of recent years, and that even congress may be moved to act leads me to believe we will have citizens marching in the streets as they have been doing so effective recently. on behalf of the fourth amendment when it texts -- protects the same privacy when

it comes to facebook and others. i have been looking desperately for a way to keep you in state a little longer. [laughter] it for one another minute. way,us, if you have your and the government will not be able to search our bones, unless phones, how much does it do to public safety? jeff: what is remarkable of these cases, the government could easily have gotten a warrant in the case, which was the first case where the government stuck a gps case at the bottom of a guys car. they were supposed to only search in the sea, and the search in maryland. they only were supposed to search for 10 days, but they searched for 11. this was the obama

administration, they stood up and said we have no expectation of privacy and therefore no warrant is needed. completely unnecessarily aggressive and, once the government said you needed to get a warrant, the police said no problem, we were going to do it anyway. this carpenter case, the courts hold again that you need to get a warrant before you can get five months of cell phone records. that will be a problem either because if you have a serious enough crime like the ones that were involved in the case, and enough time to get a warrant, you can get one as well. chief justice roberts wrote the unanimous opinion in the riley case that said when you are arresting someone, you cannot search through their emails in their phone. a phone is not like a cigarette packet. the phone has our emails and we have an expectation of privacy in our emails. effort toyour dutiful

balance the interests of liberty to balance the interests of liberty and security, and i thought you did a thoughtful job in the balance, but these should not be hard cases. and they are not because they are nearly unanimous. the framers, you need physical trespassing before you can go over the fourth amendment. in the 20's, they said if there is no physical version, you can go to wiretaps. it's exciting to see that they are doing things without physical trespassing. what an honor to be here and follow in the eloquence of jeffrey rosen on talking about the doctrine. you should go to visit the constitution center which he is the leader of. indulgence, i'm a

tenor, i think in my temple choir, i love singing, and i never thought i would get to the arena stage here. [laughter] [applause] let me just say that. i'm sorry, i have a sore throat so i can't sing tonight. [laughter] it's actually true. i come back to this community and do it a little differently. thinking about the communities of which nation and which community. aret of the issues today things stored in the cloud. where the united states government might want to get it under the fourth amendment, but maybe the british then wanted. maybe we trust the british maybe. then maybe india or china wanted. we are going to have to sort through all of the countries in the world. it will not just be our one being behind two oceans. it will be somehow interacting with the rest of the world. when we do that, there is a great temptation to think of american exceptionalism.

it is our constitution, there is the fourth amendment which jeffrey just gave us in verbatim. let's think about, if we share with the rest of the world when england should get access to it or france, some of these things, we should have fundamental rights protecting them even if they are requested from other countries. for instance, we might say we only share and have reciprocity with other countries if they have probable cause for warrants. that might seem the fundamental thing you have to have. has been proposals that the u.s. should get access to u.s. companies as long as they .et probable cause has that standard. that is an unusual standard that is held by the u.s.. can settle on something else as the bear minimum of what human rights requires read let's

have a neutral or independent magistrate. that is another part of the fourth amendment, except when i took history and law, and france, they don't do that. they are investigating magistrates that are involved in prosecution and don't have independent. in many countries, no independent judges, and so now, what communities do we go to? are there principles? universal rights? or do we say everyone gets to do it for themselves. defining a community is important. there are some sentimental rights that we want to have in detail. we can get a lot of people on board for that. we can have rights before the government seizure emails where we might have a principle, some check on the zealous prosecutor, or the exact details might be different. there will be some things were countries very. once they differs from another

. when we think of independent and community in a world of 200 countries, where emails are else, wee to everyone have to think through the 200 countries. i'll give you an example from a debate. we can come up with discussions in the united states of whether the nsa or fbi should be able to into ourption, to get correct -- encrypted communications. in the united states, we might be able to build a structure to make sure they never abuse it. maybe we can hope for that. once the u.s. or companies provide a technical means to open it up, i said technical means that is open to china and russia, so as you think about opening it up, do it as long as you would trust the least trusted country to do it. russia and china

with access to decrypted stuff, go ahead, but if you do not, don't think the u.s. will have the magical ability to see this for the community. or think the chinese and russians won't. we will have the same software, same devices, and the same problems. gripping, -- in the encryption, there are countries that i don't trust. i won't let the u.s. have a way of having broken encryption. we should have technical means for cyber security. but then i say something else, and i will stop here. the police say they are going dark, can't see the encrypted information, the bad guys will get us. going dark means the police can't see anything anymore. instead, we are in a golden age of surveillance. that is what the facebook story tells us.

we carry a tracking device on us at all times for location. not havingu grew up a tracking device. now you all have one. you have databases, facebook, and everything else. you have cameras of people around you all the time. the police have enormous resources to find things for the common good. we will live with that and try to put checks and balances on that. but then, beyond that, we should not break the encryption for everyone. we have to have technical security. if we don't do that, businesses can you are -- do the things, and everything will be broken for everyone. that is a much worse world. play aess i get to little cleanup here. i will do my best. this is quite a distinguished panel and i second peter's

statements. visit the constitution center, it is really -- and if you have children, take your children. i think it is a must visit for anyone who cares about these issues and others that are going on today. forainly, thank you inviting me to participate tonight. this is such an important ancussion and it is important discussion to have a dialogue about civil society in a civil way. these are challenging answers have thene entity will answer for. the courts will have the answers, the government will have all the answers, companies may not have all the answers. civil liberties groups may not have the answers either. think the hope is that we can come up with solutions on how best to move

forward. part, it has been interesting and peter and i go back a ways working on privacy issues generally for 20 years? yes, about 20 years. frank: it has been interesting to see the dynamics and how things change over time. there's a big privacy conference in washington dc. i remember when you could not get 10 people in a room talking about privacy, and now they have thousands of people who participate from all walks of life from companies, and advocacy organizations and others, government, on talking about privacy and trying to figure out different issues that are important. what i've seen develop over to be ad is really come

part of the discussion today, is two things. -- and some of these have already been discussed, is the advancement of technology and the law is not kept up. also, the global nature of what we are talking about now. it is not just the united states and thet microsoft companies like them have to abide by. it's how these things mesh together. of aow to decide fundamental importance, our company, and that is how to maintain customer in consumer trust, maintain the trust of may beents that you engaged with his well. too,s, that goes a little or a lot to, what are the expectations of our users? how do we stand up for our users? especially when there might not

be a rule of the law hasn't -- because the law hasn't caught up. for microsoft, we consider to be -- that to be a fundamental human right. we do thingsat, differently internal as regards to privacy. we also challenge the government and we have done that in a few instances. theave challenged government when the two gag wars. -- we are entrusted with our customer's information and the information -- the government law enforcement wants , a company and ask for information. should we be allowed, in certain cases, not all cases, should we

be able to tell our customer that the government is seeking data. because the customer is in the best position to defend their rights. thehis age where before customer is holding all of their data in file cabinets, which probably isn't the most efficient way to hold data, the government would have to go to that particular is this entity and serve them with the papers and get the information that way. case, we received a warrant for information, about five years ago, we received a warrant for information from one of our user's email accounts. we took a look at when we receive these legal requests for information, we check in to see whether or not they are legal requests, do they comply with they are legal

requests, do they comply with the law, and in this instance, we said we don't think the law that currently exists that was written in 1986, applies to this warrant because it is seeking data that is of a foreign national that is residing in one of our data centers in dublin, ireland. we challenged the case and the case went through the courts, we lost in the lower cases, appealed to the second circuit, and we won in the second circuit. part, thataid, in this is a situation for congress to act on, that they agreed in part that when congress passed this law in 1986, they did not contemplate the world -- the way the world works today. congress did not contemplate this sort of situation where companies are global, information can be held we have u.s. law enforcement seeking to go in and , for as information

foreign national in a foreign place, shouldn't that citizen of that country, say ireland, germany, france, pick the country, have an expectation that the laws of their country should apply. that gets a little to what peter was talking about. we challenged the case, it made its way to the supreme court, we will see what the supreme court has to say. at the same time, also believing in the second circuit's view that this is one for not the courts, not any individual company to sort out, but one for congress speaking on behalf of the citizens has to determine what the best way to move forward with -- forward would be. this law passed in 1986, to contemplate these are come search -- the current

circumstance. trying to work through how a new law or revision, a change to the existing law will work, u.s. law enforcement can seek this data. or work withe up congress to come up with a light -- right legal framework. what's brewing -- what we found was, we were all facing the same situation, is not only because we are global, we are getting requests from u.s. law enforcement, also from foreign law enforcement for information that we, as a u.s. company, may holding about citizens of their country as those law enforcement agencies are investigating cases in their country. the same law that we did not think applied in our case, statue" a "blocking

from preventing u.s. companies turning over that information to foreign law enforcement of another country, even if under that country laws, those requests were perfectly legit. how do you fix this going in both ways? we worked for a number of years on legislation that was passed last week, the cloud act, attached to the omnibus bill that was passed. it allows for u.s. law thatcement to request data u.s. companies may have, respecting and going through a at the laws ofg the other countries, asking the ability to object to that request from the foreign countries, for companies receiving that request to reject that, and setting a rule that allows u.s. law enforcement to

obtain data on -- that a company would be holding about u.s. persons, wherever that data may reside. there is a current court , the codification of this did not happen which is fortunate, there is a legal decision that requires law enforcement to continue to follow it. at the same time, the law allows for the u.s. government to negotiate treaties with other countries like the united kingdom, for instance, to allow to those foreign countries seek take about their citizens that u.s. companies maybe holding, provided that certain things are met, including that they had to go through human rights records, congressional oversight that they not seek information about u.s. citizens. long-winded way

of talking about one instance where our company recognized that the existing laws don't mesh with the way the world the importanced we thought of protecting our users and trying to set a rule of the law that will carry us forward. there are likely other scenarios like i said,re, the existing laws have not caught up with the changes of technology. many is going to be instances where additional public discussion, debate, back-and-forth engagement will be needed to sort out a good path forward. amitai: that is excellent stuff. i have 20 questions i want to ask you.

i want to also get our audience in. i ask one question. that concerns that the golden standard for protecting our privacy is that the government not be allowed to search them unless it is specific authorization or specific servers. basically, that is the golden standard. a day behind it, the government should not go fishing for -- should fish for significant information to show they were part of the crime. isn't that a much bigger deal? when we hear about what happened

on facebook, doesn't make a mockery of the whole idea that the front door is locked, and the government cannot go and search but they can get it [indiscernible] i need to explain what i'm talking about. all corporations, keep information about their client in order to, instead of advertising, improve the service. for use that information advertising. [indiscernible] business, they only business they have, information --f connects tons of information.

20 million, americans, and in another case, 78 million americans read they have the internal revenue service and immigrations send that information. don't we have to rethink this whole notion that as long as the 's warrant, the private sector can avoid it. how can that be? the difference between the fbi on 200the dossier and give it to the government, is one click and one check. no difference. where do we go from here?

frank: the events of the past few weeks, around facebook as well, this is one where, like i said, in my remarks before, we really do need to have a public discussion. companies, i think maintaining user trust, where you have a more direct users,nship with your consumers, enterprise customers, business customers, certainly doing something that violates those -- that trust will have some probably fairly significant business impacts. i think one of the things i have seen over time, is increased public interest in these sort of

topics. i think that -- and jeff alluded to the marching in the streets, while that may be more optimistic than i think will happen, nonetheless, i think over time, we will see calls for some rules, changes. i think some of what you talked about may come as a surprise to a lot of people. will theymes up, what ask of our lawmakers or regulators in terms of doing something, curbing practices. i have seen the pendulum swing between the days after 9/11 where people would say in the name of public safety, the government should be able to get this data. it is important to protect us and keep us safe.

these other revelations, we saw the pendulum swing in the other direction. we say, do we want the somenment to be doing what of the revelations revealed that the government was doing or trying to do? think asuestion and i time marches on, we will see folks working on what the right solution should be. >> so the question is about data brokers and huge information that the government can get. i look at it this way, and the european union, as jeff mentioned, in may, they will have a very strict law go into affect. it is pretty easy to pass regulations and directives in the eu. in the united states, when it comes to regulating huge, successful companies, we don't pass a lot of laws. these same proposals have been around since the 1990's and have not passed for internet privacy

on these companies. in my world, we have the u.s. not regulating, even when we see back problems, we see the eu regulating more than i think they should, what we haven't had is a good enough imagination of what can be in between. people haven't really -- at the legislative level of craftsmanship that went into the act, i think people are starting to say, social networks, what else is going on. congress has a chance to imagine more than they could imagine. there are people on different sides of the political spectrum that are not happy with what they have seen. that will take active work of imagining where there is some regulation of big business that makes sense. if the answer is zero, we will have businesses collecting everything and doing everything. if you want less than that, you will probably have to have laws. and we don't know those laws and

what they should be yet. jeff: just a quick thought, since peter is right, the court will have to do it in the u.s.. it is remarkable and criminal classesal grasses -- how much time we take to find out whether a private citizen is being used as an agent of the government. the silver platter doctrine. when the police go along with a taxidermist who is looking for marijuana and the real purpose of him going into the phone -- house is to fund it, but when the police officer asked him where he is not, if the situation is where you describe, the data is used as a specific purpose to give it to the government, it would be -- it would not be a stretch for them -- and they might be willing to say that you can't do it through the

back door what you are not able to do. edgar: just to clarify, -- amitai: just to clarify, i see what you are saying. they are not collecting it for the government. they're collecting them for anybody, in addition, they shared with the government, obviously. i think i agree with all three of you on this question. that so muchs information is being collected by the private sector that people, the business model of these companies is to have us exchange the data, to give them our data so they can sell it and give us great free services. an instance where that's business model, facebook's visit model is being called into question because the way they make models that money, is by selling our data. we have made his bargain that we get is great free service out of

it. is, would we be willing to pay for the service to have more privacy regulation? that is an open question. another quick observation, a quick challenge in this area. i think the courts are challenged in drawing the line. about what point giving over data voluntarily to a third party becomes a fourth amendment violation. when the government gets that information. his is really a job for congress. that may be futile in the current environment, but courts are not very good at coming up with policies as well as implementing the policies that congress puts into a fact. i think we have a separation of powers issue here as well. i agree with all that is just been said. there are probably three other

things i would note. as you note, the note of legislating this area and regulating the private sector election of information is extremely difficult, there's a couple of things that we could conceivably do. one, we should pay attention to how the government is able to get the information that we share with private sector entities. in the united states, we have the privacy act and that tries that thel information government has. i think that is an important element to protecting individual freedoms in this new, brave digital age. point, is the old joke if it is free, you are the product. i think that is something we all need to internalize. , whatd to understand

information we are giving over, how it is being collected, and how it is being used. that leaves me to the third point. at ourhave the tools disposal to figure out how much information is being shared, how it's being used, and that is a cute when you are talking about the government using tools like the freedom information act or local sunshine laws. it is also important for the private sector, this notion that sunshine is the good disinfectant -- the sun is a disinfectant. amitai: thank you all very much. if there is anybody in the room does notnot sit -- feel completely reassured on the issue, let me tell you, you are not alone. [laughter] here are thinning mike's

and, i think, maybe we should try that? i think this room is smart .nough raise your hand if you want the floor. >> on the left. >> good evening. i think you and your panel has ofched on a numerous amount issues, but the question i have deals with a prediction of behavior of individuals who use -- or should i say misuse the technology to misuse people's personal information. if notsee a time, through government, maybe private companies working with government, that we might have a challengedividuals to

companies on how the information is gathered and used, or in this case, prevented from being misused. peter: there has been another law passed by congress that addresses that. congress passed laws when we weren't looking. it might be called festa, i'm not sure. what it is about. up until now, if you ran an online service, and people posted stuff that was bad, the company that was running the online service could get in trouble. protectiontermediary from section 230 of an old law. the new law passed, which i have not studied in past, makes it

legal for people that organize these websites from getting in trouble. particularly around things we are all against. one of the things that has happened this week, craigslist has dropped all of its personals because, and sorry folks, you missed your chance, after decades because craigslist said under this new law, they could no longer police it's strictly enough. assets were onn the line. reddit hasread it -- also done so. there has been legislation creeping in saying some of the speeches, are the risky enough for congress to say no? state laws are also moving on the revenge for him. this is a bad thing to do. you have pictures with your intimate friend, you break up,

and then post pictures to the internet. that is revenge porn. these are all examples of some misuse of these online services where the company's are starting to take the hit for it. up until now, they did not have to. now they are saying, what are we facing because the abusive actions are now starting to get liability on some of the companies. intermediary liability is not without cost. the europeans have passed a sweeping new law called the " right to be forgotten." it comes from a french statement . [laughter] now, were in france right and somebody was to tweet that jeff was going on too long and taking up too much time, or something like that, after the show, i could sue google and have them remove this offense against my honor.

google would then have to decide and if they guess wrong, they are liable to up to 2% of their annual income. for google, that is like $70 billion last year per tweet. if you look at europe, including articles about the right to be forgotten itself, putting liability on the intermediaries clashes directly with american notions of free speech. that is why the section that is incrediblyd, important and distinguishes america from europe. generally we don't ask facebook and google to look at content and decide what is embarrassing, true or back, and what is not.

in light of these regulations, there will be new pressure, especially on fake news to decide what is fake and what isn't. do we really want the platforms to be deciding truth? those are very hard questions. my instinct is to not put that on the intermediaries and to come up with another solution. good evening gentlemen, i am dominate. germany, and we had a police state for a couple this, i and because of was very happy about the point that mr. olson made in the end about big corporations because, in my opinion, there is a misunderstanding of the current facebook scandal. it is not abuse of facebook and misuse of facebook data, it is use of facebook data, what has

happened there. the whole problem that has been raised already in the panel was the free mentality that we see in the internet. it is convenient to get all of the services that we want, messaging, email, and this one for free in exchange for our data. i pay for my imo service provider, i pay for my messenger, i'm in the commonest -- i am an economist, i do not know if they will keep my data safe, but as an economist, i know there is no freedom -- no free things. what i would be interested in do org is what can we when will the rest of us wake up and realize there is something going on wrong and maybe change

their behavior? what can we do to incentivize them? makee do anything else to them understand that there is no free lunch and that not only the government, but the specialized our problems, but also microsoft, google, and facebook. [indiscernible] [laughter] >> when i talked earlier about seeing the progression of privacy through the years, one thing that has challenged companies through the years is how to make it transparent to users about what they are doing with their data, how it is being used. i have seen this at my company

and likely others, we have gone you start to read through the policies and you get to the 45th page and the engineers who wrote it, have to explain what they are doing and legalins becoming this gobbledygook. very descriptive, but how do you turn that into something understandable for the average user? example, if my grandmother could not understand it, we have to go back to the drawing board. companies have worked through ftcyears with the f cc -- on how to be helpful on guidance on how to explain to users and a simplistic way what you are doing with their data, how it is being used, what happens

downstream, are you selling it to other users, what is going on? to get your point, transparency will become even more important. the revelations that we have seen, it has been interesting watching the reaction of some of our policymakers who themselves did not understand how data is being used, what is being collected about them, so you do have to make the choice. do you want the service provider -- service provided for free in exchange for what is happening, but to make that decision, you have to understand what is happening in parameters around that. you haven't want that, to decide, do i want to pay for the service? this is one that i think people are going to have this will have and people

to make these propositions for themselves. i think what we will see is the regulators either here or europe step in when they think companies are stepping out of bounds. it is out of bounds if you are say you are doing one thing in your privacy statements and your promises to users, and then you go about doing something else. or, if you are being too opaque about that. i think the ftc has brought cases through the years against companies, and correct me if i'm wrong, that might not be misleading, but maybe fudging a little bit about what they are doing with people's data. >> one quick observation on the economic bargain. it goes back a long way. people used to have party lines. to have give up privacy very cheap or free telephone service. this goes back decades. we are seeing that now. you wouldomist,

appreciate that it would be up to consumers to drive this or offer more transparency and ease around the privacy protections. customers will stop using the services. i think we are a long way from there and all of us who have any interaction with young people are shocked at what they are willing to put on their public facebook or instagram, or snapchat. so maybe privacy is changing for the next generation and they are willing to give up that amount of privacy for these incredible services. >> can you stick around for a moment? struggle withists asymmetric information. to assume people are willing to give up for us free service -- give up private information for a free service, that if they,

for instance, -- me that occurred to buying a apparent sneakers would end up [indiscernible] they use information from different sources to define my medical condition without correcting the information. to what degree, in order for work, thereal to has to be symmetry of information. the problem of all digital technologies is that people don't know how to use them properly. , in we talk about privacy talk about this concept with my friends and say i have nothing to hide. i asked them, why do you have curtains in your windows? why do you ride -- don't write

any intimateon -- information on posts but you would send it in a letter to your loved one. it's because someone else can read it. it is so abstract. it is a computer, and there is less fiber in between us, so you think just the fact that i can't thatt and touch it, basically puts them in an abstract space and does not make it understand -- does not make isunderstand that it accessible to the people that have the skills and capacities. -- and problem i see jeff you just mentioned it, the big problem is why do all of these companies like microsoft and google, why are they so powerful?

because we made them so powerful. it is that simple. without the kind of information, data, privacy is that we have given up on a voluntary basis, and that we have given up willfully to a very few players they wouldn't be able to create and establish, and analyze all of these profiles to take advantage from them. i'm rude holder, i have spent the last 25 years or so in telecommunications. provisions of the act, was a strict protector of proprietary information. when mr. rosen was speaking thief whocell phone was tracked for five weeks and as someone,

else talked about this noted revelations which, in my understanding, was something like this giant data room where everything that went across at&t and verizon networks, was being listened to and whether it was u.s., or foreign speakers, it was all listened to and is supposedly the government was going to decide what they could or could not use. , where thoseg why things not protected by the prohibition against sharing cpn -- anyone other than customers themselves. jeff: i've worked on all the things you have mentioned. the snowden revelations, and there were previous lawsuits that the frontier foundation brought, i think people now call that part of the upstream program. peter: the upstream program

would be a lot of stuff coming nsa isthe system and the authorized by a federal judge , a real judge,02 confirmed by the senate, the there has been authorization for specific identifiers, like this email 1000, onead so million, 10 million things go through and only that one item is able to go through the nsa storage. you might say they are breaking the rules. that was reapproved by congress this year. that approach. that is not a secret anymore and that is what congress approved. , that had to do with the phone companies for commercial use selling data about people's usage.

under a court directive, for fisa or verizon for cell phone stuff, a judge of said we are the government, we are giving you the right warrant area and cpni does not stop that. says the company should not use your information for personal purposes. but that does not stop judges. good evening. i don't want to derail the discussion too much, because my question does not really relate to social media platforms or the technical aspects of a lot of cyber security, but it does such on the broader elements of security versus privacy. i was curious because some of you have experience with safeguarding medical information that has been referenced in your comments.

how do you respond to the current debate over the right to purchase firearms? -- and toe people say be honest, i think i am one of them, if someone once to purchase a firearm, it is a relevant matter what their medical history is, and what their psychiatric history is, but matt -- but as the matter stands today, that information is not around for state and federal background checks. i'm curious to what your thoughts would be on that subject within the parameters of the sea versus security. andai: it is a legitimate timely question. before i turn it to the panel, let me mention one thing that most of you may be familiar with . you used the term medical

information, the law does not protect your private medical information, it tells certain entities like doctors, clinics, hospitals, that they cannot the vols medical information. if you use any of the apps, to orck on your heart rhythm status of any other medical they are perfectly happy and able to sell it. it is important to understand that the law differentiates is protected and small units from sharing information. jeff: if there were to be proposals to allow sharing of

medical information as part of background checks, the second amendment would not prohibit it. to haveso valuable people on the second amendment agreeing that historical purpose of the amendment was to prevent a terrific federal government from disarming citizens, it is not a debate about an individual or collective light, and in the heller decision, justice scalia's decision said the it would be said consistent with the first amendment. if we fail to pass a regulation, it is not the constitution's fault, what is so interesting about your suggestion, is you can imagine a system that balanced the use of this data for security purposes with legitimate privacy concerns of

individuals and gunowners, second amendment advocates are about the vilest that you cannot get off of. you can appeal to get off of it, thequery anonymously unless individual was found to have a serious mental illness and was put on a you not vilest very -- do not buy list. could, in theory see the congress passed this. good evening, thank you very much. this is very interesting, thank you so much for sharing your opinions and experiences. at work, i had the opportunity to review the privacy policies for the messaging app we use at work.

they are about to release a new areion of that, they revising it and having the new policy. they are doing a better job of legalese.r or less they don't define the terms, or say what other means or third parties means, or what other uses could be, so with zero legal training, and not a lot of time to study this in depth, what resources are available to people like me would like to understand more, don't want to hire a lawyer to assist, don't want to pour hours over these terms, are there consumers unions, anything working on this? i heard about the electronic funding foundation. could you share resources on more information and could you recommend anything as credible? mentioned them and

they are great one. a number of other organizations -- you can also one of the issues here to is, he don't understand it, is just a regular reader, that is a problem. >> there has been a shift on the part of technology providers to make the material as understandable as possible. if you are reading a privacy policy or terms of service on a website, and you cannot make heads or tails of it, that is a red flag. >> consumers union has announced a major project. they're going to start systematically rating products for security and privacy. matter,issue will because god knows what is being collected in your car.

that is an effort for ordinary consumers to have somewhere to look to figure out which one of these is better. >> if you are just looking for general information, i would recommend ftc's website. becauseinformation, like i said, they have done the work around how to make privacy policies more understandable and readable. at the professor university of california berkeley through the years has tried to digest company's policies and how to read them. >> can i make one other suggestion? it occurs to me, this is an area where security and privacy come together. when you think about cyber security, and what happens when companies have your information and they don't protect it, you think about the equifax breach,

which affected every single person in this room. information which we never said to equifax was ok to have an cell. ll.and se it was stolen. the better the security they are providing, the better our security -- privacy is protected. microsoftend from mentioned the cloud act earlier. i was wondering his take on the cloud act. there was not a consensus in terms of whether it was a good thing for the public. >> for those of us who are not familiar with quack i'm not super familiar -- who are not familiar with quack -- passedeems like it was in a waita circumvented traditional ways.

-- curious if anyone had any on the cloud act. >> the cloud act is two basic things. case,is the supreme court microsoft, -- commonly called microsoft versus ireland. microsoft is challenging a probable cause weren't seeking -- warrant seeking data physically stored overseas. permits an email weren't does not apply next territorial. the cloud act enters that in the affirmative. i'm not taking a provider must disclose emails regardless of where the data is. second part which

would deal with what are called systems trees. -- treaties. if another country once law enforcement assistance here or abroad, there is a system right cases,re you -- in many the other country would come here, the department of justice would get a warrant, send the information overseas. this would create a system where the department of justice with the concurrence of the state department could enter into agreements with another countrys -- another where, say that other country has procedural protections that protect privacy enough where we can have a reciprocal agreement where they can get stuff here, we can get stuff there. the law of positions on omnibus,ncluded in the

i think it would have benefited from additional debate and additional publicity. i think everybody agrees there even those who support it and support it for good reasons, given the alternative, agree that it has certain parts that we need to on -- anon -- and i eye on. a project at georgia tech called the cross-border access to data act. we have a webpage on it and hundreds of great pages to read about it. i think that research, it does a surprisingly good job compared to what might have happened. there's things you could polish. if we did not fix it we were going to have all sorts of a mess.

we have to judge whether imperfect legislation is better than the mass. i have written about why i think, all things considered, it is good for privacy and civil liberties. people have sharp disagreements. >> i want to go back for a moment. we heard two positions from the panel. on one hand, third-party doctrine, an american ideal, once you release information to another party -- i'm not sure if the only interpretation of the third-party doctrine. once you release it, it's gone. heard this idea, the europeans said no, you own information, you give it to somebody, they want to give it to anybody else, they have to get your permission. bookends, two extremes of the continuum.

closer to the european union position, it gets more intricate. first of all, if indeed every time a commercial firm wants to use information you release to somebody without your permission , you saying yes or no because of information about you is used -- i don't think most europeans do that. second, if you read the law, it exempts -- they don't have to do this for research. they don't have to do it for commerce. like, soon, what it looks a wonderful idealistic solution. you own the data, no one can touch it unless you get permission. in those areas where the law applies, the european union has a compliance gap.

it is not enforced enough. every time i have been to europe -- if youey said, ever have asked permission, raise your hand. amazon did. is the european law anywhere near as idealistic as sounds, and as practical, where do we find a new -- in between the third-party doctrine and this notion that we own the data and if anybody touches it, they permission yet the -- permission? >> neither part seems satisfying. surrenderhat once we information to a third party, we lose all privacy, would mean we have no privacy. datauropean approach that

which goes to a third party may be disclosed with permission -- consent, risks the danger we might give away privacy in exchange for a toaster. we might click away and not read policies and then we can get it back. the alternative to the third-party doctrine is answered d? the immortal question, wwb what would brandeis do? read his dissenting opinion in the olmstead case. he says the proper question is, is the government invasion done a reasonable intrusion on our security and safety? does it reveal and express thoughts? impermissibleis even with a warrant. he says wiretapping is impermissible because you can

hear both sides of a conversation. unless theissible suspicion is very intense. that is the practical question we need to ask. what does it mean to have cognitive liberty and freedom of our thoughts and emotions? when the search is so vast it invade that privacy, it is inherently unreasonable, with or without consent. >> i'm so excited about this discussion, i did not realize the time. [laughter] at this point, all that is left for us to do is thank the panel for a wonderful discussion. [applause] thank you also for joining us, i 23 whensee you on april we are going to be discussing what we as a nation oh other

owe other people. we have -- going to discuss the rohingya. why did we not stop war in syria? , hope youfor coming will come back soon. [applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: coming up tonight on c-span, a discussion on politics and security in afghanistan with that country's national security advisor. at 9 p.m., c-span's landmark cases series continues with the case of gideon v. wainwright, establishing the right to counsel. after that, an interview with bill gates on the work of the bill and melinda gates foundation.

next, a look at security and politics in afghanistan, that country's national security advisers spoke at the u.s. institute of peace on counterterrorism efforts and relations with pakistan. event was moderated by the formal national security advisor for president george w. bush. >> good morning everyone. my name is nancy lynn work. i am the president of the u.s. institute of peace. i'm pleased to be able to welcome everybody for a special program. i'm glad the weather cooperated. welcome to everyone who has seudo-weather event th