unconstitutional and the european court of justice struck down the european ersion of sort of a smith v. maryland, said the date of attention directed is unallowable and fundamental violation of rights. we've seen the united nations issue a statement that mass surveillance is not permissible under any circumstances. it is necessarily a contradiction of sort of our fundamental values and it's an inherent violation of rights. and we see a lot of things like that. but beyond that we see the real change that's happening is actually occurring outside of courts, outside of congress, outside of the executive agencies entirely through things like technology

the jones case that they have some doubts about smith v. maryland and those doubts existed and opinions written by five of the justices. not all the same opinion but that shows there are some support there for a reinterpretation of smith and smith v. maryland is the opinion of a lot of the programs and interpretations. so if you can get the courts outside of the secret court to hit these issues and find something's unconstitutional this makes it much more difficult for them to twist the words and make a creative argument in the secret court to expand on things even if we don't know what they are doing in accord. and if we end up having a special advocate that gives them something to work with in those courts. so we are hopeful that through judicial change on this we can set the stage iv what reform. >> and if the courts rule against you are you worried about setting an unwelcome precedent? >> our plan is to win. >> are you company you can win? >> this is a good court. unanimous opinion and i think there was the necessity for warrant for a cell phone

they have doubts about smith v. maryland and those doubts existed in opinions written by five of the justices not all on the same opinion but that shows some support of a reinterpretation of smith and smith v. maryland is the underpinning of a lot of the programs and the interpretations. if you can get the courts outside of the secret court to hit these issues, to find some things unconstitutional, this makes it much more difficult for them to twist the words and make sort of creative arguments in the secret court to expand on things, even if we don't know what they're doing in that court. it makes it, if we end up having a special advocate, that gives them something to cite to something to work with in those courts and so we're hopeful that by getting some judicial change on this can really set the stage for widespread reform. >> and if you don't -- if the courts rule against you, are you worried about setting unwelcome precedents that could cut against reform? >> well, our plan is to win. >> are you confident you can win?

my own approach would be questions about smith v. maryland, that should amend the law for the time being. maybe even the nature of metadata will change overtimes and courts can accept it by saying this is how should be addressed. in terms of the overall balance, it's important just as we think about we don't want the government to have too much power. we don't want to say, for example, everything, we want to see content information is unprotected online in the case of privately held content. on the other hand, if we go the opposite direction we could say all metadata is protected under the fourth amendment by a board requirement. i think that should take it way too far but it ends up being the privacy protection we have in the online world would be much greater than the off-line world and if there's a lot of practical wisdom in the balance the physical work early strikes that somethings are not protected under the fourth amendment and other things are. trying to maintain that balance to my mind requires right now a lot of congressional action

my own approach would be questions about smith v. marylandat should amend the law for the time being. maybe even the nature of metadata will change overtimes and courts can accept it by saying this is how should be addressed. in terms of the overall balance, it's important just as we think about we don't want the government to have too much power. we don't want to say, for example, everything, we want to see content information is unprotected online in the case of privately held content. on the other hand, if we go the opposite direction we could say all metadata is protected under the fourth amendment by a board requirement. i think that should take it way too far but it ends up being the privacy protection we have in the online world would be much greater than the off-line world and if there's a lot of practical wisdom in the balance the physical work early strikes that somethings are not protected under the fourth amendment and other things are. trying to maintain that balance to my mind requires right now a lot of congressional action is

why has v the courts taken almost 40 years since smith vs. maryland to look at this again when we have had several technical revolutions. >> we have about 10 minutes left for a few agrees the audience. -- questions from the audience. raise your hand. you know the drill. >> while we're waiting for the mic, let me add to that. i think we see r-seeing an rogues of that doctrine and i ink the prime example is the yace the court, the fifth circuit said you retain a reasonable level of privacy meaning the third party doctrine doesn't eliminate your constitutional right to privacy and email your email provide that case is significant for providers who now all -- certainly those in the ninth circuit which includes google and a lot of the big providers require warrants before they will disclose the contents of scored things like your email but the statute actually doesn't always require a warrant. we do have some case lou. you need to turn over that content based on something less -- you're about to jump out of your seat. o ahead and talk about it. >> rick is

the european court justices struck down the european version of sort of a smith v. maryland. said the data retention directive is unallowable, a fundamental vile rights. we've seen the united nations issue reports that mass surveillance is not permissible under any circumstances. it is necessarily a contradiction of our fundamental values and it is an inherent violation of rights. we see a lot of things like that. but beyond that we see the real change that's happening is actually occurring outside of court, outside of congress, outside of the executive agencies entirely, and this is happening through things like technology companies. let me actually make sure that i've -- i can see these right. what we've seen are things on the technological side, sort of in the fabric of the internet, where immediately upon the public awareness of the problem, technologists, academics, engineers around the world all came together and went, this is a serious concern. and how do we address this? how do we solve these problems? how do we make sure we don't have to deal with this in the future?

the european court justices struck down the european version of sort of a smith v. maryland. said the directive is unallowable, a fundamental vile rights. we've seen the united nations issue reports that mass surveillance is not permissible under any circumstances. a is necessarily contradiction of our fundamental values and" hernt violation of rights. we see a lot of things like that. but beyond that we see the real change that's happening is actually occurring outside of court, outside of congress, outside of the executive agencies entirely and this is happening through things like technology companies. let me actually make sure that i've -- i can see these right. what we've seen are things on the technological side, sort of in the fabric of the internet, where immediately upon the public awareness of the problem, technologists, academics, engineers around the world all came together and went, this is a serious concern. and how do we address this? how do we solve these problems? how do we make sure we don't have to deal with this in the future? we see that individuals as we

speaking of -- even judicial holdings like smith v. marylandof the drop box, i guess i could start with kris sort of where we are in the landscape of the patriot act just in terms of ecpa. what's the hindrance? >> the situation right now is civil society advocates with frequent like to say congress has updated privacy laws in 20 years. we of the 1996 electronic privacy act. that congress has given law enforcement any new surveillance power companies in the newest to do with these new technologies. what that ends up happening is that as these new technologies come up, the government has to try and fit the new technologies into the old authorities. we have the government using devices like stingrays which of these highly sophisticated cell phone tracking device that a person in the soap collect information about hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people. they look to the authorities they have and they said is this more like a pen register we got in title iii? is a more like a white cap, or is it nothing? they've taken all thre