>> garrett: welcome back to "face the nation." now going to look at privacy surveillance and the future of technology. this debate may feel brand new but 30 years ago new year's day this very broadcast was devoted to privacy and surveillance. asking the question first raised by george other well ground breaking book "1984" that question, does the government know too much about all of us. let's take a look. >> welcome to 1984. 1984 is a year not the book. or is it? spy cameras scan our banks and even our streets and computer data banks compile lists of information on everyone. we're all leaving an electronic trail behind every time we use a credit card or place a phone call. >> i think in the united states big brother was born twins. >> guest robert smith was the

editor of the privacy journal. >> does anybody here think that we are fast approaching the 1984 that george orwell described? >> the technology gone far beyond that. we not only have camera surveillance but computers which he did not foresee. we don't have the political climate clearly for total surveillance society. there are societies across the stacey that do have that mentality. if you combine our technical sophistication with their political attitudes you do have 1984, that's rather scary. >> 30 years later internet and cell phones are revolutionized global communications given all of us whether we want them or not digital fingerprints that governments and private companies collect and scrutinize. where should we draw the line. to talk about that we are joined by jeffrey, editor at large of "time" magazine. james, who wrote atlantic cover story of 50 greatest inventions

since it is wheel. the culture correspondent for national public radio and senior editor in charge of technology coverage for scientific american. great to have you with us. happy new year to all of you. let me start with you, jeffrey, go around this way. technology, human privacy, individual privacy, how are they aligned, how are they raising concerns, separate from what the government does but private companies can do, how they gather data track us in almost every movement we make. >> well, it's a question actually i used to ask when i was in law school. i am a lapsed lawyer, i never practiced. back then i think i saw myself as constitutional absolutist and idealist as all law students are. if you told me tea bout internet, told me about post 9/11 surveillance i would have said this is unacceptable. we've lived through 9/11. we now know something about the internet and we know a few things that we didn't know then. we know that if we're going to have a robust, monetizable

economy on the web we need to surrender some data. we know that if we're going to be kept safe post 9/11 we need to be willing to surrender some of our privacy. things that would have been unthink handle before. so the question becomes, where in that elastic system do you begin to allow. >> garrett: how do you get happy with surrendering. >> fascinating to see that clip 30 years ago. always is to go back in time capsule. they were complacent about technological advancements were stone age, storage, processing speed, visual, all that just many orders of magnitude ahead of what they imagined then. then a clays ensee about -- saying we don't have the political climate that in the last year since 9/11 we've had this sense that anything in the name of security is worth doing. that was so interesting about the nsa commission report which the president is saying is time to draw a different line. we can do more things than we

should be comfortable with. >> how can we draw different lines when people who are exercised enthusiasts wear a fitbit. >> i'm wearing one right now. >> garrett: all health data can be scored. we do that for convenience. we do it for commerce. we do it for health. yet it's all getting in to this vast array of data of all of us, are we surrendering happily since we didn't think we would ever surrender maybe 10 or 15 years ago. >> i am wearing a fitbit which is keeping track of how many steps i take, we'll see lot more of these wearable devise, some may track your heart rate, blood pressure, all kinds of things. the question comes, who can access that data. i think with all of this, the law is going to have to keep up. and so we need bigger discussions, vigorous debates i think about who can access the data. there was a reason when all these tech companies met with president obama recently and

really what they wanted to talk about was nsa surveillance. they wanted to talk about privacy because, for them their profits depend on us feeling that our information, whatever information we surrender to them is safe. >> garrett: seth, we now have technology or soon will where fingerprint is the mechanism by which you enter in to all sorts of things, your iphone, your bank, perhaps some other thing, if that's all hacked where do i get a new fingerprint? >> you can't, that's the problem. same goes for iris scans, facial recognition, palm prints, this is moving in to consumer technology things that were once used solely for national security purposes. big concern once you get all this in centralized database no more secure than your target p.i.n. and that's getting very dicey territory. i think we'd be wise to think before we go too far. >> garrett: there's a thread in this conversation that ale

laws need to keep up, policy needs to keep up, i don't have a lot of confidence in the laws or politics catching up with this. and being innovative and balanced. james? >> something to give a thin reed of cover, every wave created benefits and harms. talking about technology, with deviation for bombing or transport atomic power. this is this era's version of struggle we've been through since the dawn of technological innovation. take advantage of what is good for understanding. it is discouraging to consider today's washington to challenge our system faced again and again. >> you know, i have to say one of the things you see with all this technology is very often we're happy to give up our privacy for convenience. i think that's something we really have to think about. all of us have to think about.

how much are you willing to give up in order to have facebook. is it okay that facebook has all this information? would you be willing to pay rather than see advertising because essentially advertising is going to get more and more targeted. the more information they have about you going to direct your eyes. >> which jeffrey leads me to a question raised by some technology writers saying, isn't it kind of hypocritical for the big tech companies to be outraged about nsa data gathering which it is their very core business model to gather this data, put it through algorithms provide it to businesses so they can more readily, rapidly and intuitively almost find out what consumers want. >> i often find that the experience is quite surreal. when i go on to amazon and there's a book i'm considering buying because it reminds me of a book i bought 11 years ago hand what pops up on my screen is the book i was just thinking about buying.

it faintly creeps me out. the fact that this works the way it does, is good for commerce, is good for the convenience of the shopper. but interestingly, twitter recently has made clear that they are now -- they're partnering with ten partners or ten advertising groups and those groups are permitted to use you're twitter data to follow you around the web to see what you do. twitter allows you to opt out. but you're required to go to each of those companies individually, ten different partners and do it one at a time. we provide a list of those on the site they're making the before as high as possible so that people -- >> garrett: free web. i wonder do you think -- do you have any sense of the future of handing over this data and what americans are going to be comfortable with ten years from now. do you think it will be more comfortable or less comfortable

in handing themselves over. >> ten years from now is -- >> garrett: five years. >> just go next year, the year after, the next phase of the debate we're now having in the wake of snowden nsa revelation, a lot of this free floating anxiety is going to be turned toward the tech companies who have become very huge and i think people are -- there's increasing awareness -- >> garrett: they anyway not be viewed as benign as they were before. >> i already think they were not as benign. >> living in the bay area, recently there was group of -- had to do with income equality, at some point these companies are getting very wealthy off my data. and i do wonder if it's some point that's going to -- this started the discussion where people feel like, do i trust these companies? are they out for my interests, you could see a turn. >> garrett: what is the transachessal side

philosophically for handing over something you think has a value but you like it to be more valuable to you than somebody else. >> i think this is the kind of adjustment we have seen before in corporate history and technological history, of any era, oil companies or car companies they have their pluses or minus, i still say companies often seem like they are finally -- cannot order drone strikes, cannot put people in prison. it's worth being stressful about both of them. what google does is one thing, what nsa and u.s. military can do with something differently. >> i think one of the things that we have to consider this reminds me of discussing this in the green room, the idea that it seems according to the new federal ruling it's already for some of the nsa data gathering to take place because they gathering is really done by the private firm companies. but that feels a little bit disingenuous like super pacs can gather unlimited amounts of money because they're not

technically coordinating with the campaign. what is technically is happening and what is happening sort of o.j. is something else. just under the table coordination between the government and the phone companies. that causes me concern. >> garrett: fantastic discussion. we'll turn to future of technology, some something innovations all that coming up we'll be back in one minute with more of this outstanding panel. stay with us. ♪

[ male announcer ] what kind of energy is so abundant, it can help provide the power for all this? natural gas. ♪ more than ever before, america's electricity is generated by it. exxonmobil uses advanced visualization and drilling technologies to produce natural gas... powering our lives... while reducing emissions by up to 60%. energy lives here. ♪ >> garrett: we're back with more of our panel, i must say i'm enjoying this conversation immensely. put this around the table. fascinating future of technological innovations that we just saw or about to see. go around the table. >> for me, all roads lead to space. i'm excited about what we're going to see in space in the following year. the mars probe is going to be arriving at mars, sampling the

ancient atmosphere determining how much of the atmosphere is left is dynamic. how much we can possibly see of that atmosphere being able to sustain life. also going to see increasing private sector launches to the international space station. orbit science has launch schedule in january. idea that we're going to privatize space as massive enterprise, suddenly doesn't any more is sort of working i find that exciting. >> garrett: james. >> what about technological innovation is a process that we tend to market these big leaps. the hicks boson the incremental day by day accumulation, may have been somebody else. tend to over estimate what will happen in six months underestimate how much things can change in five years. the things that are moving quickly now are storage capacity

and computers capacity, visual technology and all the rest. just discussed the previous segment the bad side of that, good side in medical care. finding ways to plum the secrets of mankind's worst illnesses so i think a public health revolution both public and personalize asked what i'm looking forward to. >> i would say, things happen incrementally then suddenly it's everywhere. >> garrett: what is 3d printing? >> 3d printing you literally have a printer which you put sort of a powder that might be, now could even be ceramics, 3d print, the printer takes software that you've put in, three dimensional and it prints out a three dimensional object. now, it was on "grey's anatomy" they saved a child's life in

"grey's anatomy" because they were able to print heart valves, they did this daring thing, should we do it, it became a controversy in the show. i think that in the next year you're going to be hearing more about 3d printing, they're going in to classrooms. so, for example, if you are studying a work of art, the smithsonian has released high quality scans on the web. in your classroom if you have a 3d printer, they're getting cheaper and cheaper you can get one for $300 now. you will be able to say 3d print, michelangelo's david. and look at it. looking at a sculpture in a book is very different from looking at a model. >> garrett: you mention chocolate, where they can 3d print a t-bone steak. >> i think both augmented reality and then to go a little bit further virtual reality, what i mean by that is augmented reality through wearable computing, google glass now competitors to google glass, i

don't think google glass is there yet. if we imagine this technology being embedded in to the frame of your existing eye glasses as a tiny dot so that it's overlaying your surroundings with information, whether it flies or not a lot of people working on it and lot of money going in to it. >> garrett: not just wearable technology but technology in your wallet would be useful to me. tells you where you've lost it. where your keys are. things that where they are in relation to you. this goes back to edward snowden's christmas message, a child born will have no conseptember to have untracked, untrackable unnoticed moment in their lives. i guess the down dark side of it. but that wearable then findable technology embedded in to other things. >> right. this is the internet of things that idea is that every device you own will be embedded with some sort of sensor that can track it. there would be a lot of good

benefits to this, pursuing energy savings, talk about your house turns off the heat and dims the light as soon as you leave then dials them back up when you walk in the door. there are a lots of -- >> garrett: on the verge of breakthroughs inconvenience and efficiency. driven by this technology. >> so the technological real revolutions. past generations have been virtual space, computers, sophistication and speed, storage, costs, everything else. remain not see those applied to the physical world whether it's energy, which is the world's greatest challenge in my view over the next generation. whether it's transportation, if you can print things locally this 3d printer looks like a big fish aquarium. that reduces them, transport costs f. we have ways to think virtual achievements, downsize we're talking about work with the nsa apply those to the physical problems of transportation of energy, of health, of manufacturing location. >> let me put something on the table that speaks to the

transformative qualities of these technologies. in some respects they take the human being out of the labor process. and can the economic system accommodate for a 3d printer or other technologies that completely eliminate the human component at all or robotics that go farther than that. can this economic system as foundation in humanity co-exist with the technological advances? >> i think there are a couple of ways to look at this. this is a question that has ever been asked. as soon as factories became mechanized and even crudest robots were used we founded the dealt nell for american labor. there was reason to think that. there wasn't a lot of hysterics, jobs are displaced, there is a lot of disruption that happens with this. i do think that the more this happens, the fewer jobs you're creating the more jobs you're eliminating this comes on the heels of a global resection which is problematic. it is also, though, to be said that the ecosystem of these systems is such that as we

eliminate jobs you do create other jobs in innovating these new machines. these machines, robots don't spring in to life de novo there are people who deny them and engineer them. you shut down a plant here you open up another plant that builds the row boats. whether you have one for one keep the jobs. >> garrett: you've been thinking about this for a very long time. >> it's a problem that is always been solved and unsolved with each wave of technological innovation. solved in the sense that new occupations that nobody would laugh dreamed of 50 years ago, hundred years ago. people are working at search engine technologist, even 30 years ago what is that job. always been solved in one way. before it moved off and unsolved in different ways. you have inequality problems, you have skill gaps, we're having the economy becomes globalized you have what used to be a national division of labor within one country you have all

the different income brackets now becoming worldwide where you have -- you have replicated in each country some of the people who are displaced by global competition some of the people are the new victors. have to deal with this era's unsolved challenges. >> garrett: living in the bay area how do you think the technology epicenter is dealing with this or at all? >> i have to say that in the last six months, things have really stirred up in the bay area around income inequality. you have seen more and procedure protests in san francisco, twitter moved in to san francisco. jack dorsey who is one of the founders of twitter recently talked how he wanted to work with the community around it to make sure that there wasn't just income inequality. so people are feeling displaced. the city is filled with engineers, people with new skill basis. i actually think there is the potential for a lot of resentment along the way.

and if is often the case silicon valley is the bellwether of where things are going it may be that this kind of sentiment is going to -- >> garrett: last word on this topic be the first to talk about the thing you are most interested in in 2014 or 2015 technology, innovation then we'll round it up with everybody else. >> james makes a very good point. adjust somehow what the affect will be on net employment and unemployment i'm not sure. i think the bright spot here is the possibility of people working with machines, where machines do the things they're good at we do the things we're good at. both in the intellectual space, designing things then even physical space working alongside robots in factories. for 2014 i'll go to the consumer technology space right now, something i'm very curious about is virtual reality, relic of the '90s may make a comeback because of the oculus rift.

we'll see going to consumer electronics show next week we'll see how -- madge oculus -- >> rift. >> garrett: sounds like a character in harry potter. >> it does. on that front i was thinking actually about google glass in terms of scarier innovations fact that ultimately we could also be able to track where people are gazing. >> garrett: where people are gazing. someone could make entire could tree out of where you gaze. i need to speed you along. >> consistent with the idea that energy is humanity's greatest challenge i look forward to breakthroughs in energy technology ranging from better battery life, which use of algae. >> garrett: algae. >> what scares meaned trees me the most is next step in biometrics allowing us to be our own key fob so that our

computers go on when we are there. darpa look at temporary tattoos that have microscopic antennas allow your computer to start in your own presence and daily password pill that you take is activated by your stomach acids which work at electrolytes that comes what -- you take another one the next day. >> garrett: with that. we will be right back.

>> garrett: that's it for us today i hope you've enjoyed it as much as i have. bob schieffer will be back next week from all of us "face the nation" and cbs news, have a very happy new year. ♪ [ male announcer ] everyone deserves the gift of all day pain relief. this season, discover aleve. all day pain relief with just two pills.

the energy in one gallon of gas is also enough to keep your smartphone running for how long? 30 days? 300 days? 3,000 days? the answer is... 3,000 days. because of gasoline's high energy density, your car doesn't have to carry as much fuel compared to other energy sources. take the energy quiz. energy lives here.

captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> male announcer: the following is a paid presentation brought to you by international commercial television. >> hi. i'm lisa varga. i'm 40 years old, i've never had cosmetic surgery, and i'm not afraid of high-definition cameras. bring them in closer, guys. closer. good. now, do you want your skin to look as youthful, fresh, and line-free as it can? well, get ready, because i'm going to share with you right now something every woman should be doing and the one thing i do every single day. what is it? well, 3 1/2 years ago, i first began using my radio frequency dermawand. why? because it delivers real results. and talk about results -- here's a picture of dermawand's developer christina boves. to prove it worked, she used it on just one side of her face for 12 weeks. on the dermawand side, lines,