, if you have no privacy interests and you are collecting metadata, than the you are collecting metadata this not make the privacy rights arise. chief justice roberts is saying 040 is zero, he says no, it is a much different privacy interest that state, and that is what changes before them in a doctrine. zero, itt just zero for is zero plus a lot of really important information. the factors are not suspicious grounds. it distinguishes financial records on the one hand and telephony metadata on the other. it can trace an information and purely location information. it is not satisfying in that regard. kennedy goes on and says look, so records are no different than many other kind of business records. also raises miller and smith, but then he shows this court on hinging fourth amendment doctrine. in many ways, i think the horse has already left the barn. that is what happened, that there was an effort to wrench cass, which proves to be more dream oriented than actual, because fourth amendment doctrine has remained pretty much grounded in the terrestrial world in many ways. justice thomas c

. >> there is a new appetite that was talked about with the capability with metadata from that program that was altered by congress. that they are dialing without the expectation of privacy of a little or a lot. that is those types of challenges. >> keeps those questions in your head by next it is my honor to welcome professor from georgetown law. one of the nation's foremost scholars and her own work was cited five times as a defendant in the case as a faculty director among many other things please join me to welcome professor donahue. [applause] >> thank you for putting this to gather. so to be extremely happy about this opinion. i am not very happy about it but hearing from justice course such disdain and justice thomas i think this is the right result so i think of it as the fourth amendment law that was part of whether the carter negotiation of the iranian crisis with u.s. property rights interest so it was the right decision although with that reasoning to get to that conclusion. so what did reach that conclusion there is the interes interest. i am deeply concerned about the way

all that metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the fourth amendment it gives illegal you know reasonable search and seizure and he said redell it readily counts as reasonable because it serves a critically important special need preventing terrorist attacks in the united states is that the kind of mindset we want moving forward as we get deeper and deeper in this kind of surveillance police state that we're already you know neck deep in at this point most terrorist attacks that have been going on also you know about americans. so as we put it we want to have a real conversation the muslims aren't coming from other countries and coming into american should not these schools these are american citizens who grew up in gun culture conservative gun culture and so you want to talk about surveilling sept and unless that's was to issue back today because that's something that no conservative is going to say the thousand kids can get shot in the school and get on t.v. and say we got to be tougher on guns. and not have around him not actually have it like you can watch everythi

give to third parties and is known as a third party doctrine that's been the basis for example for metadata search and many other things one example of this many years ago was your bank statements and the kind of business record that you give away the bank has an information and the supreme court said that's a 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 reason my expectation of privacy in that that's been expanded in a variety of ways including was 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 is continue and if you take that doctrine the third party doctrine again you have no reason expectation of privacy in it to its logical conclusion then it's an easy decisions 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 all they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days w

the government, after carpenter, can no longer say it is just metadata. that traditional content not content distinction in the law where the government has generally argued that while content may have more to level protection, metadata does not. they can no longer say just as a the decision, as indicated, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for what you do in public. looking backward now, one can perhaps observe the writing on the wall. over the weekend, i listened to with jim baker, former general counsel of the fbi. as i heard him talking, i basically heard him say, the writing was on the wall. i might suggest that you could even hear markings of that writing in the jones oral arguments. scaliample, when justice explained, don't we have any legislatures out there that can top this stuff? that statement in the context of the argument should have served notice upon doj about what a future case and interpretations of fourth amendment doctrine , if doj had gone to court that morning in jones expecting a pro-law enforcement majority that would end

>> sir, i'm aware as well of that metadata. my recollection is working with a group in my office because it was the largest office and taking -- >> was it your computer that put the change in to the statement? >> based on my subsequent review of that metadata, i believe that to be true. >> okay. and who has access to your computer? anybody besides you? >> no. my secretary had access to parts of the -- to parts of it. >> why was the change made? >> my recollection, sir, and i'm not an attorney, my recollection was that attorneys within the fbi had raised the concern that the use of "gross negligence" triggered a very specific legal meaning. >> criminal. criminal. >> exactly right, in a legal context, "grossly negligent" is used in various statutes, particularly one of the mishandling statutes in 793, to talk about a criminal -- element of the criminal offense. sir, if i may, quick, i promise -- >> this change was hillary's get out of jail free card, right? >> absolutely not, sir. >> well, hillary hasn't been prosecuted. so if sh

the fact that we collect all of your metadata for almost a decade and in fact every american's metadata for almost a decade doesn't make a privacy right arise. kennedy is really taking on this view that zero plus -- sorry, not kennedy. chief justice roberts, that zero plus zero is zero. he says, no, zero plus a terabyte is a much deeper privacy interest at stake and that is what has changed in fourth amendment doctrine is that the court is recognizing, look, it's not just zero plus zero, it's zero plus a lot of very personal, important information. these factors, however, that are being offered are not sufficient grounds alone on which to distinguish between financial records on the one hand and telephony metadata or, you know, phone numbers that you dial and that call you so register, trap and trace type information and purely location information. so it's not satisfying in that regard. now, kennedy goes on to offer three critiques. he says, look, cell records are no different than many other kinds of business records. he also is concerned about stare decicis. in many ways, i think thi

senator rand paul has expressed concern over kavanaugh's ruling on collection of america's metadata. i'm going to go to the judge first. what do you think of all of those various legal questions there? >> judge napolitano: they are all in a play and i'm glad you mentioned rand paul because if all the republicans minus john mccain vote yes, then it doesn't matter what chuck schumer does. but if lisa murkowski or susan collins on the pro-life issue vote no and if rand paul votes, originally said he was in no and now he is a neutral and he's going to be open and he's going to interview the judge extensively, but he has written not only on metadata, he has written that the nsa is not bound by the fourth amendment and can gather anything we put in here, whether harris and i are talking in her office and this happens to be in my pocket recording what we say or whether we are talking on the phone. >> melissa: under what grounds did he say that was okay? >> judge napolitano: because is not going to be used as evidence in court. in his view, the fourth amendment only regulates law enforcement

the metadata thing is very serious to rand paul and to libertarians.tadata the who, what what, when where of our cell phone calls. judge: without john mccain republicans need every single republican including rand paul. >> and including lisa murkowski and susan collins who last night said. they refused to show up at the announcement. pete: on that issue roe v. wade on the social conservative front, where will folks fall? >> i think everybody assumes is he against roe because is he unabashedly catholic. i don't believe he has ever expressed to be candid with you you a public opinion or judicial opinion on roe. only time expressed opinion on abortion is under the law. not under the law as he wants it to be but as it is that an immigrants minor, presumptively has the right to an abortion. that rankled conservatives. ainsley: what are the chances that a justice would want to go back and reopen those cases? i know they have done it in the past. they did it with the labor law. >> some say roe is so profoundly wrong, i'm in this camp it ought to be undone bec

one area to watch that senator ran to paul because this judge has ruled that metadata collection doesot support that he has to win 50 votes and make the rounds he ran the boston marathon twice so he knows about running the gauntlet. gauntlet. there is plenty object low -- objection that they would object to anyone so now we have the name it is brett cavanaugh. he has plenty of supporters and they say they are confident with his conservative credentialsn as he goes through the process. >> shannon bream thanks for being with us now, the white house news correspondent now we are getting some in something powerful would happen although i see shannon bream context at george mason law and he almost said the very same thing on the original is in separation of powers and i will read that later but what is the first reaction? >> for those in the room it is a reaction of welcoming a lot of people thought he was the perfect person for thehi job one of the most powerful circuit courts in the united statesir d.c. court of appeal so was john roberts as was leah and thomas and ginsburg and ward berg

like the use of telephone metadata collection. so i have much share the underlying concerns. that doesn't mean this particular jurist, judge kavanaugh would be harmful to those views. i'm still reviewing his record. i don't know he would always reach exactly the same conclusions i would reach as a lawmaker. but the rules differ somewhat. in one of the opinions judger judge kavanaugh wrote, he acknowledged a lot of this is appropriately handled by congress and the executive branch. >> there is still more oversight and transparency that's needed. that's why we need you on capitol hill. continue with the job you are doing and a grateful response to the president's nomination. so i lead by fine example. thank you very much. president trump's tough talk at the nato summit did not sit well with former secretary of state john kerry who issued a statement calling the president's comment disgraceful, and saying i quote never has seen a president say anything so strange or counter productive. if if he knows anything about doing strange and counter productive stuff. when he was secretar

>> they see the metadata, the headings of an email. so immediately, the head of gchk and i quote them by name in the book and it tells me in interviews, they immediately sent a note to the national security agencies saying hey, you've got a problem here. you've got dnc documents that we're seeing in the russian network. so when the president comes outs and says i think it was the russians, but it could have been somebody else, it wasn't someone else. they saw this inside the russian military intelligence network. and they weren't the only ones, the dutch had gotten inside the headquarters of the gru, the russian military intel jents hajents -- intelligence hackers and they had video of them. and on top of that, the cia had some unique human intelligence, that was very closely kept, john brennan could give it directly to president obama that was attributed to president putin. >> so what do you think the russians could do in the 2018 elections? what are their capacities? >> they could do a lot of things, but my biggest fear is not just t

missing metadata secretary of defense that russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive destabilizing behavior and its illegal occupation of ukraine. it is a tough week for donald trump when he was slammed for his performance while standing next to vladimir putin but thursday when he was hit from by bringing in dc. in the midst of all the headlines and outrage, this week there were some other big developments but got little attention. for instance the trump administration proposing sweeping and controversial changes to how the endangered species act is enforced, rolls back obama era standards on:- disposal, steps to spur new investments for training new workers and most importantly set a record for successfully pushing through the senate more federal judges than any other recent administration in its first 2 years so that is important because that will help donald trump keep his campaign promise of remaking the federal judiciary by packing the courts with conservatives. there's a lot going on legal team waived attorney/client privilege on what we've been talking about. what is it? it'

mission in iraq is that we strongly believe that prevention is better than the intervention of the metadata that i have to make sure that i sold dollars is not able to come back and the best way of doing that is to train the iraq is to build a lot of capacity and the importance of the nato training mission is that we are going to train the trainers we are going to train the teachers and the trainers so they can train their all soldiers themselves build military schools and academies so this is this is what the action i would do in afghanistan after a big combat operation of many years we have scaled down our presence not on its own from com but to train assist and once we have seen the many problems in afghanistan that at least we have seen that we are unable to afghans to take over responsibility for security in their own country and that's exactly the same as a concept we don't apply in iraq different countries do. challenges but the best way to prevent nato and nato allies being forced back into combat operations in iraq fighting dogs and the other kinds of terrorist groups is to make su

is that content or metadata, i follow you. know your life, government for a long time believes no, i can track you, no worries. kennedy: n 4 you are the deep straight. >> i spent 8 1/2 years in congress, and 8 1/2 month putting the booking in. kennedy: coming up president trump fights critics left, right and center. on everything from russia, stormy daniels, and his popularlpopularity is rising. panel is joining me to talk teflon don, coming up. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. add-on advantage. come hok., babe. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is! all around louisiana... you're a nincompoop! (phone ping) gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notificat

is that content or metadata, i follow you. know your life, government for a long time believes no, i can track you, no worries. kennedy: n 4 you are the deep straight. >> i spent 8 1/2 years in congress, and 8 1/2 month putting the booking in. kennedy: coming up president trump fights critics left, right and center. on everything from russia, stormy daniels, and his popularlpopularity is rising. panel is joining me to talk teflon don, coming up. finally. hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. come hok., babe. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn

one area to watch for a possible republican opinion, bulk metadata does not violate the fourth amendment. that's something that rand paul expresses concern about. he has to win the 50 votes and make the rounds. this is a guy who has run the boston marathon twice and so he actually knows about running the gauntlet. and the endurance he's going to need getting through this because there are plenty of objections from the left from folks who said from the beginning they would object to anyone this president nominated. so now we have the name and he begins the gauntlet tomorrow. he has the tractor is on the left and right, he has plenty of supporters. he's been vetted by the federal society and they say they are confident in his conservative credentials. so we will see, as he goes through the process. >> sean: shannon bream, thank you. joining us now is fox news correspondent it was in the room for the announcement. you've kind of been hinting all day because i've been watching your coverage, john roberts. we are all getting some wind that that is what was going to happen. john, what is the b

>> based on my subsequent review of the net metadata i believe that to be true. >> and who has access, anybody but you? >> up my had access to elements of it. >> tom fenton made it happen with his for your request. tom, first off, your take of what you saw today. >> it was a bit of a circus and it ought to only be the beginning in terms of getting information out of the justice department and fbi. i don't understand why the mueller operation is still going on given the information that's peter strzok admitted to. this is evidence of corruption, and a senior fbi official wanting to direct investigation a certain way to target a political component. and we also had mr. mueller involved in this corruption, he had to remove strzok because of the corruption and asking questions about how he is managing his investigation and the evidence of bias and corruption with his team that is still undermining the credibility of the entire justice department and fbi that he's using to target trump. >> brian: i understand you got some emails and text messages today, what did they say? >> they show comm

several companies coming up with digital solutions like digital watermarks and other persistent metadata and better data in these videos. won't that solve it? >> no. it depends on what kind of uptick in a technology we see. the main thing we need to be concerned about our deep fakes, or any fakes that can propagate widely or quickly. that's where is going to interact with our cognitive biases. that's going to be primarily a function of the major prep -- major platforms. whether we are talking about with the nightly news carries or what can be circulated on facebook and insta grammar etc.. if those platforms act as gatekeepers to embed as they fulfill to bear the right watermarks were hallmarks of a providence confirming the validity, great but there is no particular reason to think that is going to happen immediately. there are a variables and million entities trying to these validity and providence solutions. which one gets to be the winner. is it betamax or vhs? there has to be a lot of variability. let's say they're some kind of coordinated action. everybody needs to decided we are al

several companies coming up with digital solutions like digital watermarks and other persistent metadata and better data in these videos. won't that solve it? ... such as the senator described that is primarily going to be the function of the major platforms. whether we are talking about with the nightly news carries or what can be circulated on facebook and insta grammar etc.. if those platforms act as gatekeepers to embed as they fulfill to bear the right watermarks were hallmarks of a providence confirming the validity, great but there is no particular reason to think that is going to happen immediately. there's a and indian variables and entities trying to develop these solutions. which one gets to be the winner. there's going to be a lot of variability. let's say there's some kind of coordinated action everybody who needs to decide if we are all going to settle on this new thing and we are all going to use this if it is cumbersome and acts as a friction point for all of us that are putting up this user generated content unless they all do it you might find it to be a bit of a pain a

the metadata. >> harris: the reason i start there, bill, democrats no doubt, i mean they don't have leveragems of voting on the hill on this issue. but they do have political leverage. if they're looking, just in terms of looking out, i mean, either party has political leverage if they want to use certain material. how does the divide, if you will, among conservatives on judge kavanaugh maybe help democrats or does it? >> i don't think conservatives are going to be divided when it comes to nominating justice. they might debate it before they pick a person. >> harris: does that help democrats at all? >> we can talk about a lot of different things. i'm not a legal expert. i know some people who are would have differences of opinion on mr. kavanaugh's holdings in different cases. i worked with him for two years. he's a brilliant man, a man of integrity in the white house. he was clear even then that he was going to be a supreme court justice. >> harris: even staff secretary for george w. bush. >> yes. he worked on the murder board for justice roberts and justice alito. he knows the drill. this

. >> metadata shows that you modified the statement on june 6th.phrase grossly negligent was changed to extremely careless? >> i don't recall specifically when it happened. >> was at your computer that puts the change in? >> based on my subsequent review am i believe that to be t true. >> who has access to your you?ter, anybody besides >> no. >> brian: nailed. while this was happening on capitol hill, a additional emais were released. to discuss that, judicial watch his own president. first off your take on what we saw today. bit of a circus and not to be only the beginning in terms of getting information out of the justice department and the oet fbi. i don't understand why the mother operation is still going on giving the corruption evidence that strzok admitted to. were not talking about bias, were talking about corruption. a senior fbi official wanting to direct an investigation a certain way to target a politicala opponent. on top of that, we have mr. mueller seemingly disinterested in this corruption. hent kept it from the american people for

on his radar is this is from judge kavanaugh's opinion talking about in my view, the governments metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the fourth amendment. privacy advocates left and right are going to have a problem with that. do you think senator paul next piece without? >> i am sure donald trump will do his best to get him to do that. but actually, that's really the red state democrats greatest fear, if someone like rand paul. this is going to be a disaster for red state democrats because if you saw, firsthand, you saw the crowd on the supreme court steps. imagine what they would do to a democrat who gave his vote to put brett kavanaugh on the supreme court. they are going to throw everything they have against the sky. the red state democrats are caught in the middle of the crossbars. the left is going to be demanding that they vote to kill kavanaugh's nomination and their constituents in the states the donald trump won by 20, 30, 40 points are going to be demanding that they vote yes. if all the republicans hold together, then it's a free vote because no one cares i

doesn't fire up the base because of a very, very significant about unleashing the nsa to capture metadata content without a search warrant, and it doesn't fire up the base because it comes from the establishment, which the president used to call the swamp. he's not the outsider that the president promised and delivered with respect to neil gorsuch. he's a guy, with the exception of his seven years at yale, has spent his entire life within a mile or two of where he's going to be working come october. it's not the fresh blood, it's not the new face, it's not the change that we thought donald trump would deliver. >> bret: is it safe, judge? >> yes. i think it is safe. i think the odds are very strong that he will be confirmed. senator rand paul has moved from hainaut to a few weeks ago to "i now have an open mind." senator collins has moved from i'm not going to vote for anyone who is pro-life to i'm not going to listen to him. they can't afford to lose any republicans without picking up some democrats, but i think they have very good odds that he will be on the bench by the first monday in

a fake microsoft domain had been established as the landing page for phishing attacks and we saw metadatasuggests that those phishing attacks were being directed three candidates all standing for election in midterm elections. >> during his session, the director of national intelligence dan coats who speaks for the 16 intelligence agencies, says the cyber threat goes well beyond election interference and he said the bad actors are thinking big. >> i'm concerned about a cyber 9/11. let's say you shut down wall street for a week, what does that do to world markets and people's investments? what about an attack on the electric grid in new england in january? there are people out there playing this game of chess with us in ways that are -- want to take us down and we have to be better than they are. >> and experts here in aspen emphasize that cyber can use -- can be used to really amplify the impact of conventional attacks as well, bret. >> bret: catherine, have you done a great job keeping us all informed from that forum which had a lot of headlines, basically about russia. what was overlook

several companies coming up with digital solutions like digital watermarks and other persistent metadata and better data in these videos. -- beta data in these videos. won't that solve it? >> such as the senator described -- the reason why they will not solve it is, it depends on the technologies see. the main thing we need to be concerned about our deep fakes, the can propagate wildly and quickly. that is what will interact with our cognitive biases and the social bubbles that we all live in, and disseminate information. such as a senator described. that is primarily going to be the function of the major platforms. whether we are talking about what the nightly news carries, circulated on facebook, instagram, etc.. if those platforms act as gatekeepers to embed as they fulfill to bear the right watermarks, or the right hallmarks of a provenance confirming the validity, great. but there is no particular reason to think about that is going to happen immediately. there are a million variables right? there are a lot of different entities trying to develop the solutions. which one gets to be

. >> metadata shows that you modified the draft statement on june 6th. is this when the phrase "grossly negligent" was changed to extremely careless? >> i don't recall specifically when it happened. my recollection is working on the draft with a group of us in my office because it was the largest office, it was made there. >> was at your computer that with the change in? >> based on my subsequent review, i believe that to be true. >> who has access to your computer, anybody besides you? >> i do, my secretary had access to elements of it. >> why was the change made? >> my recollection, sir, i am not an attorney. my recollection was that attorneys within the fbi had raised the concern that they use of gross negligence triggered a very specific legal meeting. >> criminal. >> in a legal context, grossly negligent is used in various statutes, particularly one of the mishandling statutes, to talk about a criminal element of the criminal offense. quickly, and i promise -- >> this change was hillary's get out of jail free card. >> absolutely not, sir. >> hillary

least need some evidence, some testimony to say that, hey, that comes from my account or some me metadatar some computer evidence showing that it came from my computer or my iphone. if you can authenticate the tweet, there's no reasons why tweets are not statements like any others that might be against your interests that get introduced against you when used in court. let's go way back before any trial. there's no question mueller is looking at these tweets and has already reviewed all of them and does so on an on going basis. they are a glimpse into the mind of the person making those statements, the president. >> and it almost helps you with a timeline, right? if he's tweeting, maybe i ought to look at that day, who did he meet with, things like that. so let's go through a few of these tweets and let me get your take on this. so may 12th, 2017. trump tweet. james comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press. this is literally days after comey is fired. >> right. >> how would you handle this evidence? is this evidence of obstruction

they can absorb every bit of information you can imagine, your phone calls, your metadata, your bank records, your visa records. they can destroy any person's life. the person at the head of that turns out to be a very much partisan, a trump hater and very much just someone who is a trump hater, i guess that's the best way to put it. but i really am worried that he was head of the cia for so long harboring all of that bias. >> martha: let me ask you this, because you are concerned about all of that, and i know you are, that is one of the big concerns as we move forward because dan coats has said that he believes that the attempt to metal in the midterm election is probably more intense than it was during the presidential election, so it almost feels like perhaps rather than kind of revisiting and rehashing what happened in the last 24 hours, we need to make sure that our cyber security is stronger. that feels like something with the president could really be coming out very strongly on that that michael moore to to actual policy and fixing things than fixing a weak performance in hel

several companies come up with a digital solutions like digital watermarks and other persistent metadata in these videos. will that solve it? >> no. the reason why it won't automatically solve it is it depends on what kind of uptake of that technology we see. the main thing we need to be concerned about our deep fakes, or any kind of fake but especially deep fakes they can propagate widely quickly. that's what's going interact with our filter bubbles will live in and spread as misinformation and have sex such as the center described. that is primarily going to be a major platforms. whether we're talking about what the nightly news carriers of what can be circulated on facebook or instagram et cetera. if those platforms as gatekeepers decide to embed as a form of filter, requirements that video or imagery bears the right watermarks or the right hallmarks of a providence confirming validity, great, but there's no particular reason to think that's going to happen immediately. there are a million variables so that a lot of different entities trying to develop these watermarking and other val

what did you learn from the metadata of the clip? data in the file and how it was saved. >> well, the clip is incomplete. we've got the beginning, i believe, because i can see a start signature at the beginning of this recording. in other words, when the recorder was engaged. and where the dialogue just abruptly ends and some new conversation comes in, there is a but splicer, an edit there. those two pieces are cut together there. and i can clearly see that and i'm certain any other forensic expert with the same qualifications would agree with me. >> what does mean to the -- >> what i saw -- that means this is not an original, it's not a master, and it is not a complete recording. >> it means that their conversation may well have continued beyond that abrupt ending and that other call that comes in. >> that's a high degree of probability that that's the case, chris. >> and i think that matches common sense as well. it seems like they're having a conversation and then something happened to the recording. what it is, we don't know and

record dragnet, and he voted in concurrence that it was just fine for them to go on that massive metadataep. and i think that's going to be problematic for him. what else in his storied 12-year career do you think will be problematic in his confirmation process? >> you know, the issue you raised is an issue that's divided the lower courts. it's a difficult question. but i think if you look at a what judge kavanaugh wrote in a case that later went to the supreme court about privacy, gps tracking, he wrote a concurrence in a case called united states v. jones, later unanimously vindicated by the supreme court where they said the government cannot use a gps tracker the follow your car all day and all night. not only did he get the right, the answer there that the supreme court later vindicated, he provided the kind of originalism, property-based road map that justice scalia then took up and used in order to write the majority opinion. so i think left, right, center, conservative, libertarian, they're going to find in judge kavanaugh somebody who is independent, who is thoughtful and who has

i think it has to do with kavanaugh's statement and the collection of metadata. on the opposite side of where the carpenter court was, saying the government doesn't have access to your third party data out there. but no, conservatives are very happy. what i would add, this is important, he came up in an early obamacare challenge. he talked about the philosophy of deference. he said we should -- the courtses should avoid the temptation to give into big weighty constitutional issues on big weighty laws. like have a sense of restraint going into a place -- >> i don't understand what you're saying. >> well, this is in a 2011 case here, whose name escapes me, he was in the dissent and said we should not get into this case because we should basically hang back and let the legislative process on such a big thing which affects so many people's lives, the judicial branch shouldn't be getting involved in that right away. we should wait back and defer to the legislative and political process. this speaks to temperament. this is a much more john roberts approach than it is a

calling the press the enemy of the disturbing seizure of the metadata from the reporters.ehaviors that if they were not or kindly contained by of dealt with in some guidelines that would make that, guidelines where it is unclear -- just because there are 10 outrages in the space of a single tweet spaceor in this -- in the of a day, that does not mean we should only react to two of them. we need to figure out a way and it is hard, but we need to figure out how to respond to all of them. -- because of the impact on the rule of law and the really terrible president it sets -- .recedent it sets not under react, not in particular,t not under reaction to the excesses of this administration is the central challenge of the trump era. moderator: how are you approaching your work differently or not, katrina? katrina: the morning after the election, we came in bleary-eyed . continued, founded in 1865, not to make profit but to make change and the believe that our journalism can build a more democratic and equitable world. there are areas we continue to build out in this trump era. we

that a fake microsoft domain had been established as the landing page for phishing attacks and saw metadata suggesting those attacks were being directed at three candidates who are all stand are for election in the mid-term elections. all people who, because of their positions, might have been interesting targets from an espionage standpoint as well as an election disruption standpoint. >> senator mccaskill has been highly critical of russia and a top senate democrat facing tough re-election this year issued a statement saying the cyber attack was unsuccessful and "it is outrageous they think they can get away with this. i will not be intimidated." amazing report worth everybody's read at the "daily beast" sam. why senator mccaskill? >> a really good question and also an unanswered question. there is the coincidental times of trump going to missouri, vote her out. within a month this happens. she was highly critical of russia, also of wikileaks. those are circumstantial. what struck me about this was just how unsophisticated the whole thing is. really. they set up a fake page. tell you your

earlier this we he had discovered that a fake microsoft had been established and we suggested that metadataas being directed at three candidates who were all standing for election in the mid-term elections. >> he's not saying who the targets are exactly. he's also not specifying where these attacks originated from. he did say they're not seeing the same level of activity by the russian activity groups leading into the mid-term elections that we could see when we look back at the 2016 elections, he said guys, back to you. >> josh lipton, josh thank you very much. i wonder how these phishing attacks. >> and you also have another source of, you know, information for how prevalent this activity is, right. >> and either way microsoft has recovered from its earlier lost after those earnings let's take a look more broadly how we finished the day on wall street the dow was down 134 points or 0 pa .5%. >> this often moves in line with the dollar which went up >> mike san tolly in retrospect says its van's fault >> there are three pair of vans with my daughters. market share play and it's a similar t

oxfam has metadata as further to go.t was in the aftermath of the 20,010 haiti earthquake they use local prostitutes it was in the aftermath of the 2010 haiti earthquake that some prostitutes thquake that some of oxfam's aid workers severely compromised its much cherished values. they used young prostitutes when they were supposed to be helping the local population bounced back from a disaster. the charity did an internal investigation. they dismissed some members of staff and let others quietly resign — without properly flagging what had happened to the authorities or other charities. today mps said wasn't an isolated episode. we have reached the conclusion that, in the aid sector, there has been complacency verging on complicity with what has happened. that is because organisations all too often have appeared more concerned to protect their own reputation in the sector rather than protect victims and survivors. mps want the uk to take the lead and create a global register of aid workers to stop sexual predators enterin

give to third parties and is known as a third party doctrine that's been the basis for example for metadata search and many other things one example of this many years ago was your bank statements and the kind of business record that you give away the bank has an information and the supreme court said that's a 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 reason my expectation of privacy in it that's been expanded in a variety of ways including was 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 is continue and if you take that doctrine the 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 all they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days wor

give to third parties and is known as a third party doctrine that's been the basis for example for metadata search and many other things one example of this many years ago was your bank statements and the kind of business record that you give away the bank has an information and the supreme court said that's a 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 reason my expectation of privacy in it that's been expanded in a variety of ways including was 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 is continue and if you take that doctrine the third party doctrine then you have no reason expectation of privacy in it to its logical conclusion then it's an easy decision is 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 all they got the government got one hundred twenty seven days wo

thehe same time i don't like intrusive spying the idea that this facility in utah to store allou the metadata i would rather see tax breaks to verizon and sprint to hold onto it longer if you want to give it up get a warrant from the judge if they are going to monitor phone calls if there is the keyword hit that mina listen to the next phone call that means they can go back and listen? i do have a concern how certain technology they are looking for bad actors took come togetherme somebody is flushing the toilet a lot more at your house who was your group of friends? is there more people there? but his water consumption has gone down look at his credit card is buying gas at gas stations on his way to washington d.c. all this way for technology to be used u there was a fascinating study of governments outside the united states and they found if the data storage came down the amount of surveillance they were doing is going up so the problem he and up happy one -- happening you create prosecutorial time machine there is a big case decided whether or not a gentleman cell phone tower records could

the nsa has set up this facility to store the metadata. i like to see tax breaks given to places like sprint and then if they have to give up the data they have to get a warm from the judge. if they are going to monitor phone calls even if it's a phone call monitoring for a keywords does that mean they're going to start listening to the next phone calls. what does that mean they can go back to listen and are those being recorded. i have concern about this and how certain technology i've been fascinated by stuff i've learned and if they're looking for bad actors they can look at your water bill. someone's flesh in the toilet more at your house, you must have more people there. this guy is not flushing his toilet, his water bill has gone down. he's been buying gas at gas stations. there's all these ways technology can be used in the brookings institute it wasn't of u.s. government was governments outside of the u.s. what they found u was that the amount of data was going up. one thing you end up having is that you create a prosecutorial time

you remember the program that snowden revealed that the government was collecting august of our metadata with it that basically the national security required it. i disagree completely giving up our liberty for security we may end up with what franklin said neither. ed: what will it take to you get to yes? do you think can you overcome that? because as you say big picture here, it's not a clinton nominee and maybe you could come around and support kavanaugh? there are 10 amendments listed in the bill of rights, so the fourth amendment is one of them. so we're already down one. let's see how he does on the other nine. i'm willing to meet with him. i would like to have a frank discussion with him. and the bottom line is i don't think you get much from supreme court justices i think the conversation is useful. worth him hearing that i don't think anybody in america believes that when you use a cell phone company or when you use visa or when you use a bank that somehow have you given up your privacy, that's what the supreme court said in the 1970s, and they couldn't be more horribly wrong. n