bit of a problem when you limit human emotions and possibilities in a certain kind of way. perhaps that is the power of the # it allows us to comment. the software of facebook itself forces you to be positive and share something that deserves a thumbs-up or like. abcawun as a college professor at pepperdine is technology interfering with teaching? >>guest: every teacher wrestles with what to do with technology. and so you are constantly competing for their attention even in an exam type of situation the possibility of students accessing information via their cell phone then temptation to cheat is ever present. i teach media and yet i allow no media in the classroom no laptops cell phones. they. they must be fully present to the discussion and each other. i might use media on the screen, have a laptop bringing a powerpoint and slides, but i do not want them fragmenting themselves. when it comes time for exams, exams they are allowed all media access possible. >>host: y? >>guest: they will never be a time in the workplace when they are cut off from those resources. so it would not be a real test. they have access. how can you sort through too many options in a limited timeframe is the challenge of the workplace now. how do you see through things, read carefully analyze, make wise decisions given to many options. >>host: you close "igods" with the question, is technology enslaving us. what is the answer? >>guest: we we will come to see technology as something every day. we will come to see it like a fork, spoon, para classes. at this at this time it is so captivating, magical that we give ourselves to it a little too boldly. and my book "igods" is an effort to push pause long enough to think and gain perspective distance, make sure those tools designed to serve us are not enslaving us. >>host: kind of a warning shot. >>guest: i i think it is a deep appreciation for the people who created these technologies. i appreciate how how they helped us to manage abundance but it is a chance to say be careful that you don't place to too much faith in technology and described too much magic. >> thursday night do book tv. >> the c-span cities tour takes you on the road. this weekend we partnered with time warner cable for a visit to austin, texas. >> we are in the private suite of lyndon and lady bird johnson a private quarters. this is not part of a tour offered to the public. this has never been opened to the public, and you are seeing it because of special access for c-span. the. the ip's come into the space, but it is now open to visitors on a daily basis. the remarkable thing about this space is it is living, breathing artifact. it has not changed at all since pres. johnson's death, and there is a document in the corner of this room telling my predecessors, myself, and my successors that nothing in this room can change. >> here at the 100 block of congress avenue in austin. to austin. to my left down the block is the colorado river. this is an important historic site because this is where waterloo, austin's predecessor was which consisted of a cluster of cabins. i am standing at about the spot where the cabin was. he and the men got wind of a big buffalo herd. they jumped on their horses. congress avenue in those days was just a muddy ravine they galloped on their horses grabbed pistols and rode into the midst of buffaloes firing and shouting. he shot an enormous buffalo and went to the top of the help where the capital's and told everyone that this should be the seat of the future empire. >> watch all our events from austin saturday at noon eastern on t1 book tv. >> in january the new congress will see the largest gop majority. >> julia angwin is next on book tv. she argues due to the pervasiveness of the dragnet system we are in danger of becoming a society a society that censors itself instead of demanding rights. this is just under an hour. >> the national constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. we have three goals the museum of we the people a a center for civic education and america's townhall. riveting american society and allowing citizens to make up there own minds. we we have had such a remarkable and exciting variety. just last week we had a debate about whether the president has the constitutional power to target and kill american citizens abroad. after a rousing speech the audience changed their mind. tomorrow we we will have a great discussion on whether our constitution is broken. in in the spring we will hand out our latest mailer. i am excited about this dizzying array of programs. several books about the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act. it is constitutional heaven every day of the week, and week, and we are so proud to share it with you. please do look at our newly redesigned website as well as our weekly podcast. we hope you we will enjoy it my friends ladies and gentlemen, gentlemen, out of all the topics i am privileged to discuss , there is none i am more excited about than privacy, and no author i have been more looking forward to meeting in person and talking with them julia angwin. we are fellow soldiers in the privacy trenches. there there is no reporter in america from whom i have learned more. your reports in the "wall street journal" and elsewhere about the tangible harms of online tracking and especially the details about how much is being collected and what is being done with it is unparalleled. a a finalist for the pulitzer prize in 2012 revealed something many of us are not known. people are charged different prices online based upon the profiles that facebook out rhythms create about without our knowledge or consent. some of her other many great achievements currently a journalist a reporter at the "wall street journal" and a finalist for the pulitzer prize in 2011 on a team of reporters that won the pulitzer in 2003 also an author. so thrilled to have her here to discuss her latest book "dragnet nation: a quest for privacy, security, and freedom in a world of relentless surveillance". welcome. [applauding] >> thank you. >> we have so much to discuss. what surprised you most about how much companies and the government to know about you? >> thank you for having me here. in my book i decided to take the privacy investigations a step further by investigating myself what is known about me and what i can protect. i sought my data from as many places i could find. i identified 200 data sources, but only, but only a dozen would let me see my file. interestingly even in that small set it was shocking how long some of them were and how right some of the more. some companies were completely wrong. one said i had never completed college, was a single mother and poverty level income. none of those things happen to be true. others were incredibly detailed. every member of my family perfectly associated to me and purchases i had made. on the whole they knew a lot. occasionally they knew long things about me, and i cannot decide which outraged me more. >> were you surprised how much google new? >> the google search history was incredibly shocking. they have been storing all of my searches and that is a long time. i realize how revealing they were a map of everyday. the weather, something weather, something about my kids school, what article i was researching, start shopping for clothing. you can you can see my mind making leaps. the idea that there is a record of the mental madness disturbed me and i quit using google after that. >> we will talk about the alternatives, but there was more that struck me. you got your tsa records and found that the description of why you were going abroad for a reporting trip was reported to private companies and turned over to the government. >> this was shocking. one of the few sets of files that you can obtain from the government fairly easily, waiting three months and writing letters. [laughter] so it was incredibly comprehensive. what i learned from it was the "wall street journal" used a travel agency which used a system that automatically sent internal communications i had with my boss. and just by the virtue of no one paying attention, all attention all those communications were swept into a government file. when i brought this to the "wall street journal" they understandably flipped out. so they actually stopped working with that travel agency until they got it fixed which took quite a bit of time. this is one of the problems of this data age. they did not know. >> the amount of inaccuracies, glitches it would seem hard to get a handle on how much is out there. >> it was very difficult, and i'm sure i do not. i have probably seen a thin layer. most companies do not have to share. facebook let me download an archive of what they have on me, but we no from the european who obtained a full a full set that what i saw was less than what they had. his file had everyone who he had lead as friends posts. it kept this ghostly record of things that he thought were gone. what. what i saw was a more sanitized version. >> we will discuss the steps you took to protect your privacy. i want to to talk through the question that both of us get all the time. what is the harm? you talk a lot about edward's note in the fact that the government was collecting metadata as well as intercepting content of conversations. i am not a terrorist. why should i care? usually i get it. it it was a pleasure to be able to ask it. [laughter] you must be a terrorist. >> exactly. interesting that we even have the conversation. in in europe there is no need to justify privacy because it is a human right. we will debate it. the thing that i think is the biggest harm from government surveillance is it leads us to be less free with our speech. i read i read about this guy who was surveilled by the fbi. he and his friends are both teenaged young men in santa clara, and his friend had written a post on a social network basically saying i don't no why the tsa is so crazy. i can go to mall and vomit no problem, which is actually true. a couple weeks later this guy and his friend were at an auto shop and found a tracking a tracking device in his car. the fbi had put this on his car. he later found out it was because of the comment. what i found disturbing was what happened afterward. their fell apart. he did he did not want to be friends with someone who might put him in danger. danger. he does not feel free to talk about anything subversive a muslim american and now uses a different name and still is detained every time he crosses an international border and does not feel like he has the same free-speech right. >> you argue so powerfully it is not just privacy but free speech and the core of what the framers were concerned about. as you say the supreme court has not been sympathetic. >> no, they have not. there are a a number of reasons why they had taken that path. largely largely it is over the issue that you cannot prove you are surveilled until they cannot show any harm. an interesting case is coming up. after snowdon people can prove that they were surveilled. it will be interesting to see. one thing i talk about freedom of association. afraid to associate with his friend. people who collect big data say the thing they love is you suddenly realize people who buy pads to put under the furniture are better credit risks. risks. we have a history of protecting freedom of association. the supreme court upheld the right to keep the naacp list private. the thing is those are no longer private. >> in addition you identify fourth amendment concerns and actually went to the former east germany and found out what the styles he knew about its citizens. how much more less? >> well there were a couple a couple of people on whom they had dozens of binders they they measured surveillance and binders. but average files were 20 to 50 pages, handwritten not as robust as a typical facebook profile. nowadays the timeline dates back several years. they years. they did not no how to be repressive. i always want to be cautious with this. we are better better at surveillance but not as good as repression. >> does it work? you tell the story of one of the people who the government has offered as an example of someone caught through surveillance, and yet it is not clear that the surveillance itself was the cause. >> the one the government uses most often to defend the ms a bulk surveillance ever since the snowdon revelation, a guy who wanted to blow up subways. and they identified him because he had written an e-mail to someone overseas who was a known terrorist. they caught that through the prism program to read you don't use of both surveillance program to monitor communication of known terrorists. basically they caught him by literally chasing him across the country and cars. they had a team of agents trailing him. it was incredibly old-school >> the gps device was a form of search that the supreme court later struck down. what about the future of fourth amendment issues? you say it is currently open whether or not the government is allowed. they can subpoena the geolocation geo- locational information stored by at&t. some folks say you need a a warrant. >> the problem we have with the fourth amendment and these devices is that they are the best tracking device ever devised. any spy would love there target to carry such a thing. the the first amendment, the way the court has interpreted it has been very much about the boundaries of your actual home. the interpretation has been that if you give your information to someone outside the home such as the phone company or a bank you have a lesser expectation of privacy. that allows the government to get yourself on records with less of the legal standard. that is known as the third-party doctrine. in the case you referenced justice sotomayor were suggested it might be time to reconsider that. that has not yet been opened up by the court. >> i don't know the answer and i'm interested. what is the best alternative? we have a problem. if i take data and store it in a database i have no expectation of privacy. that means none of us have privacy. did not say what they could do as an alternative. >> it is worth pointing out all of the tech companies are lobbying to get that particular part of the law changed. they want the search warrant to be the standard for location records e-mails sensitive data that currently is easy to get. >> as you say, congress could pass a bill saying the unido warrant. >> yes. >> i will throw this out there. i i love your first amendment argument so much. ww bd what would brandeis do. i think he would have insisted that the framers believed a degree of practical obscurity and anonymity was necessary for full democratic participation and forms of ubiquitous tracking the defeat that are unreasonable searches of up person. >> i think certainly brandeis would agree with that. i heard an argument recently that said maybe the second amendment should protect us the right to bear counter surveillance. i have armed myself with counter surveillance and that puts me on a suspicious list actually. it may well be there is a level of anonymity needed for political discourse. the fact that i have my phone in a bag that prevents signals from getting through. >> the hottest privacy accessory. it prevents signals from getting in and out. it is not communicating with a cell tower. it saves me from having to constantly think, think, do i have my location setting on or whatever. it is worth pointing out that you can turn your phone off, but the head of the cia chief technical officer went public one year ago saying we can track you even when your phone is off which probably means remotely activating the microphone or some other part. true privacy paranoids put their phones in bags and this is something protesters do. cops want to no who is at the protests. it is commonly commonly used by occupy and other people. >> just because you're paranoid. far more stylish alternative >> i was going to get a faraday bag. wrap your phone in tinfoil. okay. i will try it. .. he's a stoner conversations so far who in the audience would went by. >> all right, wow. so this is actually a hearty and already committed audience at the constitution center today but i think we have a little more work to do to persuade the people about what the harms are so again the great virtue of this book. there are stories and practical tips about how to protect their privacy but you give us the harms and we talked about the harms of government surveillance. let us talk about private-sector surveillance of being tracked by on line companies and i mentioned the great contribution of your "wall street journal" articles was to reveal that people may be charged different prices on line based on who the companies think they are. tell us about that example of differential pricing. >> what is happening now when you are on line is your computer has information about you. imagine yourself being very anonymous but when you arrive at a web site and a retailer web site or someone is trying to say something they have quite a bit of information about you and they can dynamically change the page to tailor to you. this is marketed to personalization. sometimes it is when amazon tells you what books you might want although they only books they tell you our nsa -- i already have them all. but what i wanted to find out at the journal in my investigations was how is this thing is to provide different prices because that is what i think is ultimately what i would want to to do as a retailer so we did find in 2010 the capital one was using this information to change the credit card offer. when he went to their web site they had never seen you before and it's like boom here's a card for you. it was kind of disturbing because it analyze the traffic your web site sent back and forth to them and is set in the traffic there and send analysis like low income or middle income and how much education i thought you had. now let's be fair you can apply for any credit card you want. your choices are being fully limited. it's just being scoped as to what we think you might want but in 2012 what we found was we found staples was changing its prices for everybody and it wasn't optional. as soon as they identified your physical location they made an instant assessment of how close you were to a competitor store and if you were close enough they would give you a better price because they thought maybe you would go to the competitor. if you weren't that close they would give you a higher price. so you could buy an actual stapler. we bought two staplers the same exact one from two different locations and have them shipped to the same location. this is going to become more and more possible. what i'm concerned about is what does that mean because of course it's perfectly competitive and legal to do discrimination by price and economists sometimes argue it's the perfect pricing but it's also true that when we looked at the data for staples nationwide for people who live near content -- competitor stores are lower income and racial minority and they are living farther away so getting the higher prices. i think we may need to rethink what is redlining and what do we consider fair in our system. the ability to be unfair is going to increase technologically. i just raised the question of where do we want to draw the line as a society of how willing we are for people to charge different prices based on their individual. >> you show powerfully this is literal classification. you were put in the category that nielsen thought you were high-tech spender or something and then there are the others were the blue-collar blues many who are minorities who were charged terminally different prices because holm nelson thinks they are. should that be legal? >> i don't think a society has had to answer that question so we have technical definitions of redlining mostly having to do with credit and loan applications and racial minorities. we need to think a little bigger about worlds we want to draw those lines because the thing about our digital world is that although it seems like when you go on the internet you can see anything in the whole world it's also true you can be tracked in what i call a hall of mirrors where all you see is what all of those web sites think you are and think you want to see and think the price you should have. >> talk more about this hall of mirrors. you give powerfully the example of people in the last election who visited mitt romney's web site only only only getting romney as in people visiting obama's web site only getting obama ads. julia notices a cookie is auctioned off in real off in real-time to a company that earns the right to send you the romney as forever in and the result is we are living in what we call a filter bubbles whereas you see the news you consume in the reality you have is defined by who the web sites think they are. talk about that filter bubbles. >> emmy last election i found this example of the filter bubble which is that if he went to google and typed in obama into the search for obama and your subsequent searches whether they were for guns or abortion are just cats would have guns or whatever at the top and then three in the middle that were obama plus. obama's position on cats. three search results and then more cats. when you did the same for romney romney, search for romney in your subsequent research did not have that. there was no romney plus cats so i tested this across the country and i came about a week before the election i said what's happening here? if we had said we notice that you read the obama story on the front page so now the story in a personal journal on toothpaste will have obama's views on steve pace would literally be strung up. what's the deal? they such as the algorithm. the algorithm found that people who read obama while moral obama news and that might be true but is it fair and is it fair for google to make that assumption for as? >> is a system of democratic values? can you live in a society in which we only hear one side of the story? >> that's the challenge. that's why he felt at the end of my reporting that the key issue here was fairness. it doesn't make you feel human and a fair society if you are not seeing your news presented fairly. i think we need to figure out ways to make sure we can keep all the facts of the technology which i love. i love all of it and i want all of it. i want to be able to log on to my remotely from here and get my files from home but i want to mitigate the unfairness that is right now completely legal and ubiquitous. >> another virtual police lineups at google glass. what's going to happen there? >> i talk a little in my book about what i call virtual police lineups which is essentially the idea that before the surveillance was the ubiquitous there was no reason a normal person would have to file at their local police department or would be on file anywhere but now for instance local police departments have these license plate numbers. they drive around and they scan all the license plates as you are driving by and keep them in a file forever in some cases. that means they have a history of their location where you have been parked for the past three years and they can take pictures of where you are driving on the street in oncoming traffic and the traffic in front and behind. what we found was a guy in california who thought his little town had photographed him more than 200 times including with his kids getting in and out of the car in his driveway. i was on file in the police department they would keep it forever. this change the presumption of innocence in my mind which is no longer do you have to be a suspect to be surveilled? i think the challenge there is the police can go fishing in the data to see if the kids get out of the car in the driveway and disobeyed some law? there are so many laws that we don't know. it might be illegal to park your car with a wheel over the edge on the sidewalk. now they have a way to find something on everybody. >> like the guy with the gps on the bottom of this car who turned without making a signal. all of us when we drive follow traffic laws and the supreme court has said even if it's a pretext for stop is okay if you violate a minor law and you were saying with this data we are all vulnerable. >> i tell the story of the book of a guy that is a compelling example of this. he's a boiler repairman in massachusetts and he basically one day got a notice in the mail that his driver's license had been suspended. they said you have to come to a hearing. he went there and they said we have this program and i found your photo looks similar to this other guy so we think it's identity theft. prove who you are. he was basically chosen presumed guilty and had to prove his innocence. he was who he was and there program accused him. they said he learned them look like your photo. he said yes that photo was taking 13 years ago and i'm 100 pounds heavier now. this is the debate he's having with the dmv so that's what happens in this world where algorithms are in check. i want to build due process and do that. he had the right to be informed. >> digital due process is a very powerful thing. you, in order to dramatize the difficulty of protecting privacy spent a year doing a privacy audit on yourself coming up with a threat model and then listing every available technology to protect your own privacy. we have seen the dash let's talk about some of the others that you endured for the sake of civic discourse. one of the most dramatic of which is he left google and went to a web site called duck duck. >> i quit using google search and i saw how my searches were so revealing. they are still stirring them based on your ip address which is a level of anonymity but in my case if you go to a web site and look at my ip address you're looking into my home so they can be very revealing. i decided to switch to searching in philadelphia ... go. they don't store ip addresses so every time i go to them it's like a fresh new experience. they don't know who i am. it took me while to learn how to use it because i was used to thinking google would finish my sentence. you start typing and they are ready know what you want in a fillet and for you. what's once i realized it wasn't that hard to add the word at the end of the search to make sure it wasn't a natural history museum in london which they love to get me i started to appreciate the fact that my searches weren't tailored because i felt i had to control myself for what i was looking for. >> you have many useful tips about creating secure passwords and i thought oh my.i'm never going to remember them. like everyone else i have an obvious one of them! but what do i know? what is the take-away? >> passwords are terrible situation right now. so i guess what i ended up doing was -- there is software that will generate passwords for you. it's impossible for anyone to come up with all these passwords passwords themselves and then i hired my daughter to use a special technique where she rolled the dice and picked words out of the dictionary dictionary and strung those words together so i had five random dictionary words and i use those for my super secure counts so by e-mail, my bank in my password manager. if i was going to say one thing about passwords if you are going to do one thing please change your e-mail password to longest possible thing and write it down. the likelihood someone will break into your house and get your wallet and a piece of paper and figure out that is your gmail password. >> just pick a long word your member likes supercalifragilisticexpialidocio us? >> a longer the better because password hackers the programs or decide to try each letter of the password. if it's a well-known phrase like that they are more likely to guess at. that's why durand of march from the dictionary because those programs are not likely to guess the random words. we think we have an ability to create random words but our minds are not that random so it's better to try to come up with a way to find really random words. >> for those who are not privacy paranoid why is this important? what is the mud puddle test? >> passwords are actually important to be -- even if you don't believe a single thing i have been saying about privacy. it's becoming incredibly common so it's really important particularly your e-mail account can be used to reset your other passwords and to get into all your accounts. criminal hacking gangs are basically expert at breaking in to passwords so even if you don't believe in privacy change her password. >> would he have taken all the steps if you haven't been writing the book and will he continue to use these? >> you know what's interesting is i i definitely started this as an exercise to see if i could do it and educate myself to investigate how hard it was to protect my privacy but what i found is that sort of like becoming a vegan. it's a way of life. everyday i have to wake up and choose not to use bad passwords and choose to put my phone and a bag and to choose to not give my real name at the very stuff. so it has become a way of living. it is kind of a pain to be honest but i really actually think it's important for myself and for my kids. i have taught them these techniques so they won't wander into the digital world building along trail that will always be with them. so i think is worth doing but some of it is impossible. the phone basically even i've met this is not a good solution. the reason i do this is to show maybe we need another way to block tracking other than technological means. >> we should get to questions because they are so excellent. there are a whole lot of them to let's jump right in. why is the person so i'm concerned about privacy and seem willing to give up personal information? >> it's because we don't know the true cost of it. we are getting all these free services and we love, everyone loves free. what we are now waking up to 10 or 20 years into the internet revolution is that we have weren't free. we were paying with their personal data and that what we don't know is how much is that data worth? is a very uncertain time. we don't have a way to quantify it. we can't tell how will it be used against us in the future. we can only speculate as i think it's perfectly rational to be confused about whether you should care because this is an opaque market. you don't know what the prices are and it's only the chair experts that can evaluate the data. >> google claims it never shares a person's search history with anyone else. tru? >> google says that. what's interesting about google and facebook is they have so much data themselves that they do want to share it. they keep it for themselves. they buy other data from data brokers to enhance their profile so they have the best profiles out there. the problem with that is the government is always at google store. i like google and i would like to trust them with my data but i don't know if they could defend themselves in front of the nsa. >> a great related question. if the fourth member person search warrant to search my home why isn't that a warrant required by the nsa to search any computer? >> it's because of the third party doctrine. if they go into your house and take your computer physically they still need a warrant but these days is so easy to rank -- remotely get information from your computer. there are many ways to circumvent that search warrant requirement. >> you talk in a book about this exciting case from california for cutter cutter case for where the ninth circuit lester said computer searches outside the home can potentially reveal so much about is that they have to be minimized and the police should only be able to look for specified bits of information nazis anything in plain view. my back go anywhere? >> that was the first time we had seen any limits. right now what happens is, this happened to david house. they basically knew he was coming back to the country from an international trip. they took his computer and copy the entire contents and then let him go on because they didn't have to get a warrant. there's an exception of the border so it's been a tool that they have used to find information from people that they don't want to get a warrant for. maybe there will be a standard required at the border but so far it's only the ninth circuit. >> you invoke the general warrants that sparked the american revolution. john adams and the other framers so concerned about these pieces of paper that allowed these agents to search anyone's house to search for seditious material for even people not paying taxes that they fought the revolution because of it. because it's metadata that telephone numbers rather than the content is not like a general warrants? >> i don't see how you can look at the collection of every single phone calling records for the past seven years in the united states is anything other than a general warrant. it's the hugest database of connections and associations possibly ever amassed in that is what the nsa was doing with their her 215 program. they say they didn't actually collected. it's just sitting there and they collect it when they do a search and metadata. that's a technicality and maybe they are right that it doesn't exist. it is sitting there has never touched maybe we are okay with that. what i'm concerned about is what's the level of oversight to make sure someone isn't getting it. right now we are in a world where there is no data. edward snowden himself walked out of the nsa with the files he was not supposed to have so it's hard for me to trust their assurances that no one is looking at this other than. >> to be consistent with a nonpartisan mandate the lower courts are split on this question. one judge in washington says james madison would have been appalled by the prison surveillance program and would have been aghast at the slow incursions of liberty. another judge in new york said because of the third party doctrine we don't have expectations of privacy in the phone numbers return over to the phone company. justice scalia said they expect the supreme court to hear this at some point. the next question i try to hide my personal information from the nsa won't that encourage them to do more surveillance about me? >> yes, it will. we saw in some of their early documents that by using encryption which is something i use as much as i can put in my messages into secret codes that can be read by the government were hopefully will be hard to read i guess. we don't know whether they have broken it entirely, that puts you on a suspicious list and allows them to store your data longer and keep it for analysis. i recognized early on my project that many of the things i was doing were likely to raise red flags. i did it as a way of protesting in some sense because i basically felt that isn't fair. just because i want to have a conversation that isn't read by someone else with my mother i don't see that the ship of manal list. i protested that assumption. i went into this knowing that it might raise suspicions and i might be detained at the border but i expected to happen any time. i think we just have to think about whether that's the right thing. they do work for us after all and is that what we want them to do? >> in the secondary pat-downs are a pain but they haven't led to more trouble so far. >> i don't do the body scanner because seriously they have enough data they don't need my body picture too. >> was on that point, that was the one victory for privacy in this whole sorry tale. the government had the two scanners the machine and one shows you and the other makes you in a nondescript blob which for most of us as an act of mercy. they rolled out the machine and it took that great political protest the guy at the border stated don't touch my junk. they went back to the drawing board and shocked to figure out they could retrofit the machines. >> i'm still not blogging. there are so few opportunities to vote on this topic i want there to be metrics. everyone says no one cares about privacy. i was at denver airport and i saw a sign which says 95% of people opt into the body scanner. i am the 5%. i want there to be numbers because they don't presented present it to you isn't often or a choice. in some ways a lot of what i'm doing is calling the bluff on the opt in and opt out. they are like you choose. okay i'm choosing. >> who else would opt out of body scanners? this is a very pro-privacy crowd. isn't google a hypocrite for complaining about the nsa when google is more invasive? >> google hasn't put anyone in jail so i think google has a right to be upset. when they found out their data centers were being hacked into by the government after that microsoft came out with this incredible statement. they said we now consider the government, the u.s. government to be our largest threat previously had been chinese hackers. basically we are are putting nsa at the top of our hacking concerns. the tech companies are in a difficult position which is they are in the u.s. and they have to comply with the law. they seem to be legitimately outraged. there was a lot of covert stuff going on. they were complying with the secret court orders on the front end but they were unaware that the stuff was going on in the back end. >> does the current supreme court understand enough about technology to make effective privacy rulings? [laughter] she has the most tech-savvy justice and she remembers playing pond as a kid. >> i have to say i went to hear the usb coe-jones or argument and there was this great moment where chief justice roberts said wade you mean they can track my car with a gps? so i think they are starting to wake up to this. how can you live in today's world and not be aware that this is transmitting all the time? >> they are reading briefs and they are understanding the subject. do you have to be tech-savvy or basically the principles are broad enough you can un

Related Keywords

United States , New York , Germany , Texas , Massachusetts , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , China , California , Colorado River , Washington , District Of Columbia , Denver , Colorado , London , City Of , United Kingdom , America , East Germany , Chinese , American , Holm Nelson , Santa Clara , James Madison , Edward Snowden , John Adams , Romney ,