My goodness they were tipped upsidedown and had money shaikd out of their pockets at gas stations all across our country for years and finally finally the day of deliverance has arrived and they have 2. 21 on average for the price and now were told the price of oil is too low. Weve got to get it back up again. And so the best way of accomplishing that is to Start Exporting Oil because the less there is here, the less there is in north america is the higher the price is going to be for american drives, for American Home heating oil consumers. Very simple plan. Its not about helping americans at the pump. Its about pumping up the prices for new profits for the Oil Companies. Very simple. And if its not then just accept an amendment that keeps all the oil here. Simplest thing to do and then your rhetoric matches up with the reality of what it is thats going to happen. The fuel will stay here. Theyre not going to accept it. They have already made it very clear. So this is all smart of a wi
Because im on the fence as to whether theres doctrinally an issue. There might be an issue. So, i think thats why. I think a ban is necessary for normative reasons. However, however, the examples we give as to the harm that derives from bulk collection, especially 215 bulk collection, is a result of the use of the data. Again, i think thats i distinguish collection and use. Can we saw recently the Obama Administration had considered ending bulk collection before the snowden revelations. Would a ban on bulk collection harm Law Enforcement and be a bad idea . Why arent you answering that one . Yeah, why . Why arent you . Really subtle moderation here. Look im not sure those accounts about how it was considered whether or not to end the bulk metaData Collection under 215. Im not surprised it was being considered. I think those programs should always be subject to a cause benefit analysis. But ill be interested to hear the followon reports as people reaction to that initial report about ho
Introducing you. Of course, greg, the Senior Council director of the project at the center for democracy and technology. Thats enough of an introduction. You left out the website. Its www. Cdt. Org. Dont forget the plug. Listen, i its easy to come here and be pessimistic about the future of the Fourth Amendment in the technology and digital age. Its kind of easy because you look at what courts decided in the past. When i was at the aclu about 20 years ago, used to call the Fourth Amendment the incredible shrinking Fourth Amendment. Well, im not so sure that the Fourth Amendment is going to continue to shrink. And i think theres reasons to be optimistic. I want to talk about the reasons to be not so optimistic. Some of the doctrines that do shrink the Fourth Amendment are themselves growing. The administrative search you have to endure in the airport before you get on an airplane. It used to be a quick, less intrusive magnetometer. Now you go through an electronic strip search machine t
Update the statute to codify a warrant for content standard as many of you know. It makes distinctions, i think, that dont comport with users reasonable expectations of privacy today. At the heart of Service Providers, its this notion of 180day rule where contents of your communications are subject to the warrant requirement up until 180 days and thereafter at the 181st day all of a sudden can be subpoenaed. All right today in the sixth Circuit Companies like google require a warrant for all content regardless of the age, regardless of where it is stored and when it has been opened or when it has been opened. There is legislation that is pending in congress has been pending. Right now, it has over 250 cosponsors in the house of representatives. If it were voted on today in the house, it would pass. I have a lot of confidence that the same results would be true in the senate. Not the least of which, it helps to pave the way for future as many of you know in the next couple of months, se
Which is massachusetts, and ive been talking to some of my colleagues from massachusetts. Would you agree with that . I think also oregon has a pretty good standard. There are elements of other state laws you may not consider specific data laws. A pretty High Standard . It is a pretty High Standard, yes. Thats the starting point for us. Theres been some discussion about the Standard Energy in commerce. Would you say its a higher standard than what our bill would propose. Our standard is a reasonableness standard. So i think the difference here is not only might there be a difference in what the language says in that bill i think, also, we would be looking to the common law of the ftc and others to flesh out what the specific requirements are but its really important as were thinking about how strong the security standard is, to think about who has the enforcement power and whos going to be guiding the parties there. If the federal agencies are solely responsible for it even a strong st