protect can't evaluate whether the filtration effectiveness works or whether somebody who is tossing ppd contaminates their skin is a very different question. -- doffing. so thinking to what question you are asking requires the find what you want in a circuit. >> yes? >> there is commercially available fluorescent powders that are not visible to the eye until they are hit with easy life. and it seems to me like that would be very valuable adjunct to training people in doffing their gear if they put on their gear and they had this powder of life and they were floresta after they got their gear off, you could see where some of the breaks might occur. >> first question at the microphone but if you could please identify yourself and -- the mic is a little bit high, isn't it? i think it's fine. >> thank you. i'm the safety and health the director for afl-cio, thanks everybody for being here, and your great presentations. the last presentation just really brought it all home in terms of the crisis that's been faced, and i think one of the things that's really important is we are thinking about

the judge concluded that ppd-6 is a wildly publicized nonclassified directive that has been distributed broadly within the executive branch and used by recipient agencies to guide decision-making. in the judge's view, as policy guidance to be implemented by recipient agencies, pbd-6 had the force of law and was the functional equivalent to executive order. the judge's reason that the availability of the presidential communications privilege turns on the need for confidentiality to ensure advice and herein found no such need, particularly given that ppd-6 does not involve a uniquely presidential duty. which is a little bit odd reasoning. the court went on to say based on the reading of the document, the judge found it was forward-looking and didn't reveal president's deliberative process. in short, the judge concluded the president's ability to communicate his final decisions privately is not implicated. there are other cases involving the deliberative process decision, but i'll leave those to be covered by the materials and gwynn the shortness of our time, i want to move on to exemption

i have to say, being in philadelphia, the ppd has been doing this a lot. they've been making investigations both viral and social by editing these videos, putting them on-line. i've watched tons of these. people get interested in them. it's effective. >> it's great police work. >> great police work. it's tremendous. the other thing i want to mention, i've been hearing this all morning, is it legal to put these gps devices on cars? remember -- >> doesn't it make you feel bad? feel like my goodness, i buy a car and now the dealer can put this gps on my car and track me wherever i am. that made me feel bad. but you found out -- >> except when you say the word buy, when talking about the subprime car market, people with horrible credit you can say they buy a car but the dealer retains a substantial security interest and high probability they'll have to repo that car. >> don't really buy it until you finally buy it. thank god for that in this case. >> as long as you have notice there's something in your car tracking you, which you can put in all that fine print

one thing that i'll sort of mention, big picture about ppd 28 is that the efforts of the administration and the director of national intelligence here are entirely focused on minimization rules and restrictions on the use of data that they've already collected. it's the administration's position that with respect to data, communications data acquired outside the united states, not on specified individualized persons, that they basically don't want any restrictions on collection. so they're focusing all of their energy on talking about restrictions on the use of that data. how that data might be minimized, or sort of processed after it's already been collected. but they don't want to accept any restrictions on their ability to collect that data. so moving on to what's happening in congress right now, originally following the snowden disclosures, there were kind of two bills that were competing bills that were developed in the house and senate coming from different sides. one coming from intelligence community proponents, and the other coming from liberals and other anti-surveillance sort

this is also supports the president's ppd 28 mandate to recognize that signals intelligence activities must take into account that all persons should be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their nationality and that all persons have legitimate privacy interests in handling their personal information. to address a broader set of civil liberties, i am testing a privacy assessment process. the expands nsa's views to include considerations of frameworks that the private sector and nonintelligence elements of the government use to assess privacy. for example, for the first time in its history, nsa is using the principals as a framer for considering privacy works. how will it be used? as sit, we have designed an initial standardized template and will ensure we're building a helpful process to identify and mitigate civil liberties and privacy risks. a critical part of the assessment process is to make sure we're not merely checking off boxes. but fundamental lly weighing th risks. in essence, we're asking should nsa conduct a given activity, given its civil liberties and privacy ri