were you a bit of a topic covered of twitter show r t v dot com coming up song still brings us some good moves for a change of the privacy fraud as we've discussed there surprising recent supreme court decision with university southern california law professor barr cosco to watch. the new global economic war is unfolding in the realm of education the right to education is being supplanted by the right to access education low higher education is becoming just another product that can be bought and sold but it's not just about education anymore it's also about running a business and what you're good at the law could it's also the kind of fellow we

could image. what is the place of students in this business model for college i was more now i'm an extremely more higher education the new global economic war. it's hard to imagine the decades after the war a nazi doctor was still active rich in the nineteen seventies criminal had as the chair of its board a man convicted of mass murder and slavery at ash with a german company grown untold developed from the demise of a drug that was promoted as completely safe even during pregnancy it turned out to have terrible side effects what has happened to my baby is anything but. you know she said is just good choice minix a little mind victims i have to this day received no compensation then never apologized for the suffering that not only want the money i want the revenge.

with the make this manufactured consensus instead of just public will. when the right wing club system protect themselves. with the flames there we go round the seventy one percent. nothing like an old middle of the room sick. or you leave with. thanks. i thank.

you i think. these days it's pretty joyless job being a privacy advocate united states of america social media companies have ramped up their censorship efforts the intelligence community is leveraging russia gate to excuse any and all domestic spying on potential traders or as they're called outside of the beltway trump voters and we've seen countless incidents of police planting evidence on unsuspecting so civilians sending undercover agents to infiltrate grassroots activist groups and even using controversial listening devices to trick our cellphones and i think police surveillance fans or just your friendly arise and sell to our well this summer has yielded at least one relatively . unnoticed victory for privacy and that's the supreme court decision in carpenter

versus the united states to parse the far reaching implications for how the government is allowed to interact with cell phones we use and abuse every day university of southern california law professor bart cosco earlier joined our very own. all right as a costco thank you so much for joining me i want to start by asking about this recent supreme court decision in the carpenter case now it's been heralded as a victory for privacy all those a slim margin of victory how can we read this case is this really solidifying privacy of the individual against the increasing totalitarian state that has more and more access to our personal information in our location at all moments you're right on it is a victory for privacy the five four decision that says that the government now needs a search warrant to look at the cell site locations of your cell phone so when your cell phones in use are not in use it's sending signals all the time back to your carrier and to radio antenna stations those are time stamped in accumulated and in

order to get at least more than six days' worth of that you know need a search warrant the police the police and the government and before that all you needed was something much lower called a court order which the government could simply assert that this that the need for the doubt it was relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation so they raised the proof standard on that somewhat so that is important we've already known for the last four years at the listen to your cell phone conversation the government needs a search warrant but what's more interesting about the carpenter case it really is the dissents in the principles upon which it rests the fifty year old doctrine that's come out of the supreme court now have a congress. called the doctrine of the reason the expectation of privacy and it isn't clear what that means it's still not clear after fifty years with that means and you see that in the dissent especially the center of of the news justice justice course which. now why do you say that we. you know how does this allow this

obviously doesn't elucidate this issue of the problem of privacy because obviously the mess the constitution we have certain protections against searches and seizures and expectations of privacy that have been talked about but as you say no never been elucidated what is being asked in the dissent i mean is that the dissent of the justice is basically saying listen we want from the government some real clarity legal clarity from the. on what can be expected from privacy from the from the digital with the senate as to what we all ask what is a search and since nine hundred sixty seven a famous case called cats a search has become in the eyes of the supreme court. an intrusion by the government on a reasonable expectation of privacy but what does that mean and after fifty years we don't really know there's been examples you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy the argument goes and anything that you bottle interiorly give to third parties and is known as the third party doctrine that's been the basis for example for metadata search and many of the things one example

of this many years ago was your bank statements any kind of business record that you give away the bank has that information and the supreme court said that quibble and to you taking your bank statement and throwing in the trash and setting out on the doorstep that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that's been expanded in a variety of ways including what's called trap and trace to the telephone numbers that you type in on your cell phone and other things in the subject line the so-called metadata and it's continued if you take that doctrine to third party doctrine and you have no reason expectation of privacy in it to its logical conclusion then it's an easy decision as as the government argued here that you don't have a reason expectation of privacy in the cell site locations and that's exactly what the government argued in the case of mr carpenter that is still they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days worth of cell site locations on average more than one hundred locations per day. it was easy to see in the data

that mr carpenter had been near four stores and had been robbed and that was the key factor if not the main factor in his conviction but what does that mean reason i expect privacy supreme court here in a five four decision with justice roberts joined by the four liberals said the third party doctrine doesn't apply and it wasn't real clear why but he just argued that this was more like a g.p.s. search versus a beeper search and he expressed lee said that this troubling third party doctrine still stands. so the third party doctrine you know people main may or may not understand what that means but basically whenever you go into a contract with the a private entity whether a bank or a cell phone provider or whatnot you're basically giving away certain privacy even with google yes and essentially we're allowing them with our whenever you have those terms and conditions the u.c.i. accept the right that you give them certain information so essentially the government is arguing that because we allowed that information to be given to private private corporation private party they can use that information for

prosecution or conviction or whatnot do you think that the start of their production is dangerous and needs to be reassessed yes i do it's very dangerous and the supreme court seem to think so here as well it's a doctrine that emerged long before the modern digital world and certainly the revolution in digital communications the last fifteen or twenty years of priya internet kind of world so it does say that if you voluntarily give information to a third party you lose all rights and it well what we melbourne and terry to the court here look at that word wasn't quite convinced of it unlike the prosecution which simply argued in the lower courts it argued that sure you've given enough and you've been giving this kind of information up for years. so anyway it is a very dangerous doctrine that has to be rethought the supreme court has taken this about as far as they can i think given the dissents which were all over the place each of the conservative justices four justices not in the majority wrote

a separate dissent in there contradicting one of them to some extent after fifty years we do not have a coherent definition of what a search is in terms of a reasonable expectation of privacy just as gorsuch and some of the other justices suggested moving back to the traditional definition from the fourth amendment of property when there is a trespass and that's indeed what happened four years ago when justice scalia argued that a g.p.s. device attached to your car was in fact an intrusion that warranted a search warrant so his argument will different so because in the fourth amendment it says it's protected from unreasonable search and your person your house your facts and the like well a car is in effect with the argument here and that's hard to argue though in the case of the cell phone search so we use this president the supreme court did the case four years ago the rightly case that said we need

a search want to govern the search warrant in order to search. your location to put a g.p.s. tracker on you we use that here in the case of the cell tower locations so what do we do after this many years ago and fifty years to try to figure this out and again a doctrine. from one thousand nine hundred eighty seven that occurred long before there was any sense of the digital society and supreme court hasn't done it it's appropriate here for congress to step in as it has many times recently did this in the patent world not revisit it pads about fifty years or more actually and it updated to some extent the patent law for the digital age even back in sixty seven after this happened in sixty eight congress stepped in with the omnibus crime act to update. it's privacy laws at the time in light of this new and fairly radical idea of the supreme court of a reasonable expectation of privacy that's why for example employers in general can't listen to your phone calls that was done that so what congress can do now

although it has a lot of other things on its plate it can try to extend fourth amendment privacy rights to the private sector which is inevitable not just a case of your employer but to quasi government actors like your cell phone carrier like google like facebook and many other entities entities are going to be extremely powerful they have a lot of influence over your digital speech in a deep nexus with the government many cases there's a lot of basis in the law to see them therefore as quasi state actors and thereby regulate them as we do the government so that's your argument really in terms of the danger of the third party agreements and contracts that essentially were making contracts with entities as disclosed by snowden and the revelations basically that the varieties and other companies are basically giving out information to the government when it when ordered to do so so essentially there is no it's not

a third party an actor anymore essentially because it's they can be fed right to the government is that the essential argument as to why it's a fuzzy argument to some degree sprint and google and facebook are government actors and obviously to some degree that they are not but they're only getting bigger over time and this argument i think will ripen again it was an unforeseen development of a lot of the advance of digital technology that these companies would have so much influence and an old auction of paper based auction of a third party with somehow apply and allow these companies to keep this information they themselves may have some requirements in the future and then be able to give it to the government freely the government doesn't need a search warrant because there are third parties and you abandon the property idea . but how would we how could we reassess that conclusion about a third party doctrine i mean how could it be worded in a sense or phrase for people to understand that. it's essentially there is a privacy that exists between you and the corporation because you and i are

contracting privately the government does not have the right just because we're on contract with you a corporation to then access that information that's my private contract with you one sentence could say that when you give information to your digital carrier you have not relinquished your fourth amendment rights you think that might be the first things in the bill but congress can work that kind of thing out let me say also what's happening here is a development of smart techniques artificial intelligence techniques which only going to increase in time which are very much data based and it allows your carrier to know a lot more about you and thereby the government to know a lot more about you and so over time what has happened is the police. resawing their legitimate tasks the police have become increasingly more powerful not because the law has changed much of the simply because we have this earlier law that's unclear and the technology is changing creasing really making it

increasingly easy for the police to search you or to get access to what you're doing there needs to be a balance here and that's really not for the courts to work out that's where the political process to work out for the congress. with exciting and sometimes inexplicable innovations happening in science every day it leaves many wondering why we still have problems such as world food storage or just plaguing our society which is that with scientists around the world trying to solve these trying to solve these problems the latest project by the ocean reef group in italy seeks to tackle world hunger by proposing underwater farming yes you heard that correctly the group of researchers and scientists believe that underwater agriculture may be the cure to food future according to the food and agriculture organization only about eleven percent of the world's land is used for crop production using underwater.