ms. o'connor: i do -- ms. russell: i do think that there needs to be a checks and balance system, but i don't think we can rely entirely on government. government does not move as fast as technology. if we rely on government to create policies to protect our policies -- privacy, especially in the technology space, i don't see how that works and jives. the technology is constantly changing. i just don't see how policies will be able to keep up with that to the full degree. i don't think that we can rely wholly on policy and government in order to protect our policies. maybe this is the idealist in me, but i am a believer that education is key in this. we may educate consumers on the privacy of the data being collected on them. and what we would maybe consider the privacy infringements. they might choose to be like -- that's ok. i think that to some degree the market will play a role in that. there is going to be a checks and balances there. i don't think that all consumers are going to be as concerned with the

ms. o'connor: i'm fundamentally still the optimist on the panel. your question was right, we should be worried about the blurring of the lines between your online presence and your physical presence, and the risk that your sharing and other 's sharing. the supreme court's getting it that -- i'm proud to say the cdt was quoted. in recognizing the gps tracking, far beyond my enforcement -- law enforcement, i think we will try a lot of things and get them wrong in the corporate space and the government space, but we will get to be right answer. these are the rocky days when the platform is not late, but we are doing the right thing by engaging in the dialogue. ms. russell: my final thought is that any innovation can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. we, as a society, have to make when anare not sleeping innovation is being used for bad . that is the same for technology. i think the conversation around all the information and data being tracked and aggregated -- the expectation, i do think, is shifting in this country. as it shifts, i think

ms. o'connor: i do -- ms. russell: i do think that there needs to be a checks and balance system, but i don't think we can rely entirely on government. not move as fast as technology. if we rely on government to create policies to protect our -- privacy, especially in the technology space, i don't .ee how that works and jives the technology is constantly changing. i just don't see how policies will be able to keep up with that to the full degree. i don't think that we can rely wholly on policy and government in order to protect our policies. maybe this is the idealist in me , but i am a believer that education is key in this. consumers on the privacy of the data being collected on them. and what we would maybe consider the privacy infringements. they might choose to be like -- that's ok. that to some degree the market will play a role in that. there is going to be a checks and balances there. i don't think that all consumers as concernedbe with the conversation and issues we are talking about today, but i do t

ms. o'connor: go to mozilla, firefox. [laughter] ms. durkan: seriously, what do we do for those who go online now, even with mozilla there will be tracking of searches. on the one hand it was very transparent of facebook and google to say -- do you want to see all your searches? on the other hand people have been using it a lot like a library. i want to find out about tax, think about ask. in a search they never know that someone was maintaining that forever. what should we do about the ability to have that anonymity and provide to make sure that there is that ability for freedom of thought? they have no thoughts on freedom of thought. [laughter] ms. russell: this is not a perfect answer, is barely an answer at all, but i do think that the level of expectation is changing. i expect to be tracked. i expect someone to track that data. but what i also expect is that they will not use it against me. that they will not use that power. i expect them to monetize it -- let's say that there is an app that comes up in something i googled, the nex

ms. o'connor: just to build on that violent agreement all night long, and we should mix it up and probably will, but the opportunity for an individual to again, to correct that wrong or complain about that, it is very hard to make that case to the government, as you point out, when they have got the data and it is not known and that transparent. i was also a victim of the opm breach, as many of us were. the compelling issue is the one of government collection of data and the impact to your relationship to the government and the company. it is the bleeding and blurring of lines, the potential lack of clarity or boundaries between private sector data sets that were collected mostly with your knowledge. that would be a big theme in your direct to company advocacy. minimization, is it relevant to your relationship to the company, and the blurring of the lines that erodes trust in the government and the companies as well. that issue of government data collection erodes the whole ecosystem of the government and trust in my ability to transact with companies and speak my mind. ms. durkan: i'm goi