metadata. that is an alarming statement to me. metadata is who you call and how long you talk to them. remember they said it was no big deal, your metadata is not that private, you should just give it all up, and for a while, they were vacuuming up all of your metadata, every american's metadata, who you call and how long you talk. but it turns out that they are so confident in metadata that they actually are making kills based on metadata. that's what hayden said. so we have before us a nominee for the national counterterrorism center which has some involvement with developing these kill lists. so we asked him that question. i said, do we kill people based on metadata? the nonanswer was very interesting. he said, well, i can't tell you because i'm not in government. well, my guess is he's been in government and he's been in the military, he probably knows the answer but he's saying he won't tell the answer because he's not in government. so we said, ask the people who are in government do we k

this is a problem sort of metadata. you can recreate -- you can sort of triangulate information to identify a source. without even having to talk to them. without even having to know -- to have taken over their computer or take it actually physically and analyze it. you can know when a tip came in. you can be -- let's say i am eat i.t. person who -- i'm the i.t. person who is analyzing the network of a source that is visiting secure drop, news organization dot-com. and just with that information you can can can implicate a source. -- you can implicate a source. this is a new problem, modern problem in source protection. to be listed in our public directory as sort of an endorsed secure drop instance, because we don't own any of them. these are all independent instances, you have to fulfill that requirement. a certain level of security has to be on that actual tip page that will direct your sources. because we're not only interested in protecting the news organization, we're also interested in protecting the source. we t

so, there's the original metadata of a document. there is never going to be a perfect solution. but, there are also technical matters that you can add to the authenticity of the source. >> if you can obliquely gesture at the fact, that you might not see this otherwise. a reality winner who is currently in jail, for leaking information about state elections boards being hacked. two press organizations. the documents already apparently had metadata in them, that made it much faster and easier for them to identify who had leaked that. is that the case where, that is really a difficult challenge. to figure out what the adversary can use, in a document you've got them. is this about resource protection, we are going to release a document, and what steps are we taking to make sure, our source is not outed by that? is not something any of you guys have had to deal with? >> i think we can do the best thing, as often, get a document, if we even consider publishing it, we will scan it, and send it to the copy machine to rescan, it will obliterate any metadata. but honestly, personally, i

that requires item level metadata.necessarily mean full catalogue records but for -- to do the sort of projects and to take advantage of some of the newer sort of presentation and access technologies, you really need to know a lot about the digital asset that you have and what its right situation is and where the location and the title and the date just those very simple things that we don't have even if we have it digitized, we don't necessarily have all of that information and that is what users are expecting when they do a search, they'll be able to -- be able to find what they are looking for. but without that data, it is not possible. so the sort of machine processing is -- we hope will help with that. because there is no way we could hire enough cataloguers to get there. >> if i could say one more. >> sure. stephanie. >> we don't use crowd sourcing, i'm not fond of it and the history of the white house is odd and requires special information about specific rooms and what they have been but we are using machine le

because likely metadata exists.adata, if you are putting together a profile, is very important. emily: can we assume that apple is always working to make encryption even stronger? tim: the reality is that the cyberattacks on people and government -- it is happening left and right everywhere -- these affect your safety, your security. so it is not just privacy. it is not privacy versus security. it is privacy and security versus security. and so, we are always working to stay one step ahead of the hackers who, frankly speaking, have gone from the guy in the basement, that is a hobbyist, to a sophisticated enterprise. and it takes all that we can do to do it, and we do not think our users should have to think through all of this stuff. it is not practical for people, and so we try to stand up for users and stay one step ahead of these guys. emily: you said cars are an area ripe for disruption. how important is it that apple not miss out on cars? ♪ emily: let's talk about the world's second-biggest economy, china. how

they had metadata, information about the account.a, we can see that russian trolls registered twitter handles that pretended to be american, even having american news property names like baltimore news, to russian ip addresses with russian device ids. you could see using that metadata, information that's not typically public, how the companies identified what accounts were russian and what weren't. with some of the social platforms like facebook and instagram. we had information about the engagement, so we could see how many people liked it or shared it or reacted to it. we could see there were thousands of comments, 4 million, i think, comments across the entire data set. we couldn't see what people were saying. when we get at what impact did this have, which is the question people wanted the answer to, that's where we still have gaps. >> you want to know how many people reacted, how far the influence went. did the companies give you any explanation when they weren't supplying what would seem to be fairly simple information? >> well

certainly not interested in islam becoming more liberal or in advancing gender equality does this metadata pattern or follow point zero walked in and asked for us opinion that's exactly what german islam requires emancipated muslims who are not held back by tradition or the dictates of religion living freely and enjoying equal rights seen a better mousetrap chats with young women in a barrel in cafe they too want to see an open minded islam. in many parts of kenya there's a shortage of doctors especially in rural areas now the government has invited one hundred cuban doctors to help alleviate the situation but the move has met with harsh criticism. dr eliana sees her first patient at maryland hospital in northern kenya although they say. the specialist physician has been here for four months now. in some brew most people speak kiswahili or the local language some who are making it difficult to communicate with the patients was something that people coming from a community and because no english is no also he really by then they're supported directly for us. ileana and her husband are among

this is a problem sort of of metadata. you can create like, you can sort of training, triangulate information to identify a source without even having to talk to them, without even having to know, to have taken over their computer or take it physically and analyze it. you can know when eight came in. you can be, let's say i'm nike person who is analyzing the network of the source that is giving secured drop, a news organization.com and in just with that information you can implement a source and this is a new problem. this is a modern problem in source protection. so to be listed in our public directory as an endorsed secured drop instance because we don't own any of them. these are all independent instances. you have to fulfill that requirements, a certain level of security has to be on that actual page that will direct your sources, because we are not onlyinterested in protecting the news organization, we're interested in protecting the source . we take some ofthat on in our public documentation . >> we have a responsibi

. >> with the messenger android app was collecting was metadata and that means, who you were calling, when, the length of the conversation. employees were discussing the fact that there might be a pr backlash, how to best really deceive users and make sure they do not get a permissions prompt from android to let them know the collection was happening. >> reporter: facebook a preferential access to some companies such as air b and b, lyft, and netflix but refused data to others such as twitter in order to get a competitive edge or solidifies facebook's dominance in the market. >> is very hard once you are a successful entrepreneurial business especially with the market capital of facebook, to start to turn off some of those revenues. and this is where facebook needs to look at this again and figure out new ways to be more tranuse ultimately it is that comes learn. >> reporter: -- saying the emails do not show the whole context and assured the public that user data was never old. some users say that is not enough to make them delete the app. >> i would not do it. unless they had a bad r

facebook works, that they actually receive money through advertising and through our data and through metadata. so that's something that many people are now learning, and we're learning abt more a more companies. you talked about "the new york times" and their investigations, thngr report we're now learning that many companies including apple and spotify and netflix. >> microsoft, amazon. >> that's right. theyeceived access to our data, and they were actually in proxy. so it's a very confusing type of way that they worked, but essentially they were workingrs undand facebook's arm, so they were thought of as part of facebook when they receivedour ta. >> earlier this year, the state legislature did pass a privacy law for californiaecause the fcc has really refused to take this up in the way that some folks would like themo in terms of protecting consumers. and that is going into effect in january. the attorney general is going to be holding these hearings around the state to try to get consumer input on wtthey think those privacy regulations should look like. so i would expect to see more on thi

video and still imagery that we were able to harvest once you can get that and you get the made metadata and you could put it into a very careful meticulously constructed chronology and then you can actually you know with the help of partners that forensic architecture you're able to put some of this into a three d. rendering of the reconstruction of the whole thing where you can place people exactly where they were when this thing happened now it's amazing that you know i personally reporting this out to the one eighty a couple times you know based on some of the footage that we were getting in from certain angles it looked like you know one set of facts but once we were able to triangulate and not just frankly with three sources but i think we had six or something you know vantage points on the the final moment you're really able to like see everything you're able to place everything in and it's are a and space it out exactly as it was relative to the israeli side to really begin to see who was where who was doing what how far were they away was anybody doing anything they should have

. >> what the app was collecting was metadata. that means who you were calling and when and the length of the conversation. >> me were discussing the fact there might be a pr backlash and how to deceive users to make sure they did not get a prompt. >> reporter: they should that facebook gave preferential access to some companies. they refused data to other companies such as twitter to get a competitive edge for solidified dominance in the market. >> it is hard when you are a successful business with the market of facebook to turn off those revenues. this is where facebook needs to look at this again to figure out new ways to be more transparent and generate trust because ultimately, the trust is at the heart of the facebook's ability to remain vibrant.>> reporter: mark zuckerberg responded say the emails do not show the whole context and issued the public the data was never sold. >>> when we come back, we hear from employees that are recognized for saving a man's life. >>> a warning for drivers and the unusual and dangerous encoun

knowingly try to hide that from users pick >> with the messenger android app was collecting was metadata and that means, who you were calling, when, the length of the conversation. employees were discussing the fact there might be a pr backlash, how to best really deceive users and make sure they do not get a permissions problem android to know this collection wa >> reporter: they also show that facebook a preferential access to some companies such as air b&b, lift an netflix. but refused data to other companies such as twitter in order to get a competitive edge or solidify facebook dominance in the market. the revelations, the face's handling of election meddling in the cambridge analytics scandal. how can they continue trying to generate revenue from a free service based on selling ads and user data? >> it's very hard once you ar a successful entrepreneurial business, especially with the market capital of face book. to start to turn off some of those revenues. and this is where facebook needs to look at this again. to figure out new ways to meet -- to be more transparent because ultima

snowden disclosures would take for instance the 215 programmed this is the collection of telephone metadatasubject to the robust oversight of the branch approving of this oversight by the congress and inspector general but when it became public, the way it was set up to have all of the branches engaged to lend the activity legitimacy it was meant twasn'tseen that way by the pub. so much so a different wall was passed to put it under different authorities so i think what it revealed is this activity was wall lawful. .. >>. >> and what i'm wondering to what extent you thought the public reaction was because we didn't handle the issue in a public relations perspective cracks. >> i certainly didn't bad a thousand going back through 2007 as a spokesperson talking to my nsa public affairs colleagues and said you better start talking more and developing more relationships with the public and sharing your mission because your day will come. and getting some very bad coverage and with foreign-polic foreign-policy. i didn't really see that pivot on the part of nsa i will give credit to director hayde

did trigger a debate that is valuable in the surveillance arena, whether we should be collecting metadata and under what circumstances. the freedom act passed by congress and signed by the president, even though both the bush administration and obama administration has continued this policy, almost continuously from 9/11, and only change the function. interestingly, it only change form. the private sector held it. but the data was still accessible under more limited circumstances, but it fundamentally stayed in place. what brought edward snowden to do the things he did, he says. whether papers should publish the information or not, famously in england, british police seized hard drives and computers . it didn't happen here, but the tension is there. debate in the obama administration over whether or not the information about the alledge program to take on that to take down -- should have been revealed by newspapers. and the question of whether that harmed or helped national security, whether the administration was or was not involved in the disclosure, we prosecuted senior military offici

the ed snowden disclosures revealed was take for instance the 215 program, collection of telephone metadatasubject to robust oversight in the executive branch, multiple different judges proving lots of oversight by congress and inspector general oversight but when it became public, the way the constitutional structure was set up to have those branches engaged in overseeing to lend that activity legitimacy it was not seen that way by the public. it is an overgeneralization but so far a different law was passed to put it under different authority. innocence, what was revealed was this activity was lawful according to district court that had a different view but multiple courts and all the oversight i indicated was done for the statute in congress, you could say it was lawful but deemed a legitimate in the eyes of many republicans so what do you do? what does the intelligence community do? what the answer is is public debate which is what we ended up having and ultimately the authority in the executive branch, changing it to house that information in the phone companies instead of national sec

i don't like the idea that the nsa has set up the facility in bluffdale, utah to store the metadata.would rather see tax breaks given to companies like verizon and sprint announce them to hold onto the metadata longer and if they have to give it up you have to give a warrant from a judge. i don't like the government doing that. if they're going to monitor phone calls, even the computer monitoring for keywords and stuff, if there's a keyword hit, does that mean i'll start listening to the next phone calls or does that mean the keyword hit tells them they can go back and listen to the phone call that just happened. so i have a concern about this and how certain technologies i've been fascinated by stuff i've learned if they're looking for bad art is coming together to form themselves, they can look at your water bill. someone is flushing the toilet a lot more at your house. you must have people there. let's look at your group of friends. this guy bill in poughkeepsie is not flushing the toilet. as water consumption is down. let's look at his credit card. he's been buying gas on gas sta

snowden disclosures revealed was, take, for instance, the 215 program, the collection of the telephone metadata subject to robust oversight in the executive branch, fisa court oversight, multiple different judges approving of this, lots of oversight by the congress, and inspector general oversight, i should note. but when it became public, all of that, the way our constitutional structure was set up, to have all of those branches engaged in overseeing, to lend that ovactivity legitimacy, it was not seen that way by the public. i mean, that's an overgeneralization, but so much so that it -- the -- a different law was passed to put it under different authority, so in essence, i think what the snowden disclosures revealed was that this activity was lawful. now, there was a court in the district court that had a different view, but multiple courts and all the oversight that i indicated and it was done pursuant to a statute in congress. i think you could say it was lawful but deemed illegitimate in the eyes of many in the public. so what do you do and what is the intelligence community do in that in

think there's a new piece i just saw that there's a new app that's allowing you to also encrypt your metadata, which really undermines the economic model of most social media companies, if we start saying, my subjective expectation is not only do i want the contents encrypted, but i also want my data encrypted, is that a signal to the marketplace of our subjectivity and based on what ben read from the five ayes who that topic was helping to focus on encryption, that the five ayes were addressed, where do we go with that aspect? that's, i think, really puts a sharp point to your question. so, let me go down the row and see what the panelists say. >> so, i mean, look, obviously, i think that it's pretty clear, if you had talked to my students at george mason, the -- they don't expect a tremendous amount of privacy in their e-mails. i think they understand that when they log into gmail, that google is reading their e-mails and it's pushing them ads in part based on those e-mails. i think they have a different expectation of privacy when it comes to the government and that there is this disconnec

and that social network and that is not visible to the people reading it but that metadata about yourdata. who you talk to when you talk to them. plus the at risk with privacy violations and that underappreciated of what the computer is doing. and then to have this problem money won't be worth anything but how they incentivize their guards to unlock the food lockers this is sociopath stuff but imagine to go on a diet and knew you would have a cheap day on the 17 day diet. and you put them in a cupboard and lock them up so literally that same piece of software. and to live a better life and to re-create slavery. it all depends on the local control. >> from pennsylvania hello. >>caller: hello. good afternoon i am fascinated by this discussion i am calling to applaud you that the reason for my call is i have not read your latest book and that walkaway movement and that people could share that is the whole of human nature and practical balance where will the food come from? and also in the founding original colonies there was an experiment everybody kind of owns things but it turns out ce

the metadata has a time log down to the very second tracking everything.riding, and, yes, even getting out of car. >> okay. so you are thinking this isn't a big deal i will put my phone in airplane mode. we thought of that, too. this is the other phone we had with us. no sim card, also remains in airplane mode the entire time. let's see what kind of data it captured. >> the phone with airplane data ache a activated logged moe activities than the other phone. transferred 100 kill bites to google as soon as it was activated. >> the only thing that's missing in this map is our stop at the children's hospital. it still knows we were there. there it is, exiting vehicle, 100 percent accuracy. >> through complicated user agreements and free software. google gets users to sign away privacy for nothing. even following you into places that most people would expect total privacy, government buildings, a children's hospital, a private school, a church. every move you make, every step you take, google is watching you. steve: if google is watching you by extension the g