the privacy act in fact, was enacted in 1976 because that is exactly what happened with the daniel elsberg where the government went into certain classified government records just to obtain damaging information to smear him it does cut both ways, and it's an issue that's out there. >> question? >> out of the events so successful in getting into the media? >> that is a question i was going to ask our friends in the media. the question and i haven't i don't know the answer to that, but the question that i have to the panel is it there were two or three things when they whistle-blower comes ford initially to get on first base what are you looking at in a whistle-blower that says this might be something worthy of a full investigation for a few starts investigation and what are the guidepost you are looking at? i don't know the answer. >> it is the thumb rule of let you look at when you whistle-blower has some of the negatives that jim mentioned and may have a lawsuit or issues with their employer. what do look at it with the initial venting process to determine if this is a real case? >> i th

they sued daniel belzberg -- danielle elsberg and made a stupid mistake of breaking into his psychiatrist's office. >> six justices did not decide the question. they did not address it. >> fair enough, but the government did not ever do that. that is exactly my point about rules of engagement. i do not mean law. i mean rules of engagement. with somebody sitting in uniform there, i am sure rules of engagement is the wrong word. i think of it more as a lawyer. what can lawyers in an adversary rule do with respect to each other? some things you do not or would not do. two of them -- if one could make absolute statements about it, what would be the point of a panel discussion? you cannot do that. you can say generally the government should not go around bringing criminal suits against reporters for writing things that, according to the law, are secret. let me finish this and i will be through. the second thing is very important. i go back and forth as to whether the 71 -- the 1971 -- there shall be no prior restraints was important. what kind of prior restraint can you have? daniel elsburg woul

they sued daniel belzberg -- danielle elsberg and made a stupid mistake of breaking into his psychiatrist's office. >> six justices did not decide the question. they did not address it. >> fair enough, but the government did not ever do that. that is exactly my point about rules of engagement. i do not mean law. i mean rules of engagement. with somebody sitting in uniform there, i am sure rules of engagement is the wrong word. i think of it more as a lawyer. what can lawyers in an adversary rule do with respect to each other? some things you do not or would not do. two of them -- if one could make absolute statements about it, what would be the point of a panel discussion? you cannot do that. you can say generally the government should not go around bringing criminal suits against reporters for writing things that, according to the law, are secret. let me finish this and i will be through. the second thing is very important. i go back and forth as to whether the 71 -- the 1971 -- there shall be no prior restraints was important. what kind of prior restraint can you have? daniel elsburg woul