this is sergeant stewart queen inviting you to be with us again next week for another look at your united states army in action on the big picture. a weeklyicture is television report of the nation on the activities of the army on home and overseas area produced by the petroleum center. presented by the united states army in cooperation with the station. you too can be an important part of the big picture. proudly serve with the best equipped, the best trained, the best fighting team in the world today, the united states army. >> are watching american history tv, all week every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation like us on facebook at c-span history. >> on afterwards, physician and journalist elizabeth rosen saw that elizabeth rosenthal -- how health care became big business and how you can take it back. is interviewed by dr. david blumenthal, president of the commonwealth fund. >> i'm wondering if your book gave you any thought about whether health care is a free solve ourether we can problems through me -- through free market force. >> what we have seen with the i put as probably not somewhat tongue-in-cheek list of the economic rules of the dysfunctional health care market , where if you think of health care as a purely business opposition, the market. . you get the crazy places like a lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure. i'm not saying for a second anyone really thinks that, but that is clear market force -- where market forces put you right now. >> sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern. >> a look at recent internet surveillance cases and privacy today. event and their annual meeting in new orleans. >> this is a panel on private -- on modern privacy doctrine, problems, conceptions, conflict. there are interesting details and stories in the short papers. -- we want produced this to be as far as possible a conversation. c-span restricts that a little bit, because they would like us to be in a row rather than out in the community. but we will take questions and conversations and try to produce relationships as well as some information. unfortunately one of the could not get here because of the air traffic control issues of yesterday. andy over here from bowling green university, whose friend is going to channel leeann wheeler. when you see him, you will think leeann wheeler. they will each give smallpox and then i will give a short comment and then we will open it up to the conversation. leeann wheeler holds a phd from minnesota and she teaches at -- againstt book was obscenity, reform, and the politics of womanhood and america. published howshe sex became a civil liberty, which followed several pathbreaking articles on the same subject. barba's holds a phd from uc berkeley and a jd from samford -- from stanford. the laws of image, which is a very fine book on exactly on our theme, newsworthy on the supreme and movieprivacy crazy, which was an earlier work on films, which also intersects with privacy. and sarah, who received her phd at princeton, is professor of history and director of the american studies program. at vanderbilt. was a muchbook celebrated work. she is completing a cultural history of modern privacy. thank you. andy, thank you. great privilege to be leeann today area -- today. she is such a wonderful scholar and colleague. anyone's objection to sex life, as long as they don't practice it in the street and frighten the horses. so said mrs. patrick campbell, a british's age actress commenting on oscar wilde's flirtation with men in the 1990's -- in the 1890's. her point was clear. one's sex life should not concern the public unless carried on in public. have notury americans been so concerned about scaring horses. whatstill obsess over sexual behavior should be confined to the private sphere and which could safely appear in public. my last book aimed to explain how sexual material and behavior became constitutional lysed as civil liberties. i became an mast with questions of sexual privacy. i found even as many 20th century americans challenge the victorian separate spheres that had drawn strict if ultimately sustainable boundaries between public and private, they continued to wrestle with questions about sexual privacy. should sexual privacy be available only to married couples or also enjoyed by individuals? must sexual privacy reside only in the home, or might it extend to a rented public gymnasium? onto a city sidewalk. how about the workplace. what is sexual privacy anyway. can sexual privacy include a right not to be confronted with sexual expression. so far my research on privacy has focused on activist in the of their can -- in the american civil liberties. aclu founders first floated a notion of sexual privacy when defending nudists in the 1930's. they argued that criminalizing mixed sex family unity -- family nudity in the privacy of the home, and invasion by the state presentedfor the aclu as a wife and mother of two children. these arguments would not gain for approval in lower courts month the 1950's and a handful of cases that began to introduce the notion that a right to privacy might include mixed sex nudity, behavior that many associated with sexuality. it was first in control in the supreme court. the court found in griswold versus connecticut a right to marital sexual privacy in the constitution. they extend the privacy right to singles. and roe v. wade in 1973 to a pregnant woman's limited right to obtain an abortion. the stories are well known. what i have found especially interesting are the ways that even as a constitutional right to sexual privacy was developed around issues of women's reproductive rights in the 1960's and 1970's, many people were expressing a decline in the experience of sexual privacy. frank, an award-winning journalist published in 1970 article on this issue in a popular magazine look. what is happening to sexual privacy? he asked. is it dying in a world where public sex pops up everywhere? he was far from alone in couldting that public sex violate sexual privacy. in the 1960's and 1970's, many individual citizens, and some aclu leaders try to establish a version of sexual privacy that would recognize unwanted exposure to sexual expression, whether in public or private as a violation of sexual privacy. junk mail raise these issues in the 1960's and 1970's. ofates involved a wide range people, including individual mail recipients, aclu attorneys, politicians, d.c. activist, newspaper publishers and advertisers. direct mail advertising had taken off in the postwar era. early 1960's publisher ralph ginsberg user to reach millions to airntial subscribers as, a new magazine devoted to love and sex. receivedople who ginsberg circular -- meanwhile in 1966 the post office received 200,000 complaints from postal patrons who objected to finding unsolicited sexual material in their mailboxes. postal officials testified before congress to demand a law that would allow individuals to refuse mail from any concern that had sent sexual material in the past. the council pointed out that when sexual displays are thrust invaded,our privacy is and the patron must have the right to secure the privacy of his home. private citizens testified to receiving without their consent graphic ads for strippers schoolbook, men only, scanty panties, and vibrant finger. theyut the proposed law, argued, postal patrons could not maintain their privacy. for act, arguing the that arguing the proposed law would violate the first amendment. it may be one of the most precious rights of men. but it never was the less yielded when it comes in conflict with the paramount right of read him of speech. in the end the aclu lost and patrons who demanded privacy through protection from unsolicited sexual mailings one. congress passed a number of protective laws. and the u.s. supreme court upheld them in row in the post office of 1970. communicateight to must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee in order to protect the privacy of homes. the home was one thing. what about sexual expression thrust on a individuals and public spaces. the court overturned the conviction of a new york city newsstand clerk prosecuted under state law for selling sexually itlicit books but suggested might have upheld and more narrowly drawn statute designed to protect children or prevent an assault on individual privacy. one that made it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure. then 1969 the court endorsed the individual's right to read or observe what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. together they chartered a new task for privacy as a civil liberty that can draw constitutional boundaries for ups and the law. a.c.l. attorneys began to grapple with the issue of what they call thrusting. heavily on thomas emerson, a leading first amendment scholar who helped to craft aclu privacy argument in griswold. againstn advocated laws thrusting, arguing they would protect the public and captivate audiences from exposure to uninvited sexual messages and material. unwanted sexual communication function more like action then like speech, he insisted, because of the shock affect it was capable of producing. againstpported laws thrusting included protections for children, where is necessary to restore and -- restore a public sphere free of sexual images. there is no right of privacy for people in the public rina. that public arena. 1970 the aclu board voted by a razor and margin to accept narrowly drawn laws that would prohibit thrusting of hardcourt hard-coready -- of pornography on unwilling audiences. like the aclu it recommended the elimination of most of sunday the laws, except those that protected children and prevented assault on individual privacy by offensive public displays. the commission was widely and relatively then announced by the senate and senator who called for the commission and by the new president richard nixon, who condemned the report as morally bankrupt. even as the nation's political leaders demanded ongoing increased restrictions on sexually -- on sexually explicit material, consumers moved the culture in the opposite direction. thus the golden age of pornography arrived in the middle of an electoral turn toward the right. acluis context the reconsidered its policy. national board member and first amendment scholar ridiculed the concept. individuals had no right to privacy from sexual speech. privacy will be adequately safeguarded as long as we protect our right to escape from one another after the first exposure to unwelcome communication. others continue to argue that obscenity in public places is like a physical assault on a captive audience. but they were now on the losing side, at least until the foreseeable future. thrusting would never inform aclu policy. it would only inform the lower court cases in the early 1980's. 1970'sfound by the freedom of the press had thetically eclipse privacy law continues to empower postal the survival and endurance seems directly related to the emergence out of the demands of patrons. those ordinary expense that ordinary citizens whose experience is a are so difficult to recover. by conspirator -- beckons -- by thrusting -- and extremes to which they might go remains equally unclear. not about protecting the sensibilities of forces. what law prevents billboards from featuring explicit sox siggins -- explicit sex scenes. it is zoning laws aimed mainly at protecting property values. designedrassment laws to prevent sex discrimination. a range of laws that prevent children from exposure to sexual material and the mysterious community standards that remain at the core of obscenity law. i was just our public life has become one less shaped by laws and war -- and more by efforts to shape consumers -- how do thee efforts relate to privacy experiences of ordinary citizens echo finally what is it mean to turn? what are the risks and benefits of turning the public sphere over the corporate assessments of corporate taste? [applause] about one year ago and in invasion of privacy case, the wrestler hulk hogan one $140 million for a website publishing a sex tape without his consent. the massive judgment stirred heated national discussion and around freedom of the press. too many it seemed into the seemedy right this intuitively right he win the lawsuit. on the other hand the tape was true and doesn't the first amendment protect truthful speech. privacy and of americans in the past century have struggled to balance these values. it's a story about how privacy made a start in american law, but it receded in the face of the increasing priority that courts began to play on freedom of the press and what has been described as the public's right now. by the 1970's freedom of the press had practically eclipse is why theich verdict was surprising and could potentially signal new directions in the law. i want to tell you about this history. on might the legal action for libel, which deals with false the invasion of privacy deals with true but embarrassing personal facts. the cause of action came into being in the late 1800s in response to the rise of the last -- of the media. which were said to threaten a person's ability to control his public image and his right to be let alone. two lawyers proposed a legal action that would allow people to sue the press for but embarrassing intimate facts or images and to recover damages for emotional distress. right of dignity, a right that was generally not protected under american law at the time, this right to privacy was controversial. it resonated deeply with a public that had become concerned that the threat of the individual posed i will wanted exposure --unwanted posed by unwanted exposure. even though protections weren't thereensive back then, were constitutional problems of privacy laws that would allow people to sue the press. if the right to privacy weren't limited in some way. coverage of a scandal for example might be of the to successfully sue for invasion of privacy. and the law would have a chilling effect on the press. to protect the press, courts adopted a privilege. publiclishing matters of interest. sometimes described as newsworthy material. matters of public interest were defined as topics that serve the public interest in the sense of the common good. a legitimate matter of public interest. a new story about a politician sex life could be a legitimate if it of public interest sheds light on a new story of politicians -- if it sheds light on that and it's -- unfitness. said i had nort need to know and no right to know. the reigning definition of matters of public interest had been fairly narrow. 1950's it began to steadily broadened, tracking the protectedre speech first amendment jurisprudence and the court, growing popular andlsion against censorship the increasing financial muscle of the press. able to attain top lawyers to make convincing first amendment arguments in court did in an important shift, some ports were deferring to the media on the newsworthiness question. there was a shift from a normative definition for matters of public interest, so matters of public interest were what the public should be interested in to a descriptive definition, a matter of public interest is in -- is what the public was interested in. it was by definition newsworthy. the press published only what the public was interested in and willing to pay for and it was in the business of the course to be passing judgment on public tastes. narrow view of newsworthiness would infringe on what was being described as the right of the public to be informed, to have the information it needed to engage in public discussions of public affairs, which was described as the foundation of participatory democracy. this more expansive view of newsworthiness led to outcomes that some critics thought as disturbing. interest great public in celebrities private lies, their personal affairs were privileged matters of public interest, some courts said. some ordinary citizens gave up their right to privacy when they were involved in newsworthy events. there are cases where personal effects about crime victims were recent photos of accident victims were published and they sued for invasion of privacy. those lawsuits failed on the ground that the victims became a part of the newsworthy events, be it unwillingly and lost their right to privacy. not all courts were willing to go so far. put it, somese revelations might be so intimate and unwarranted as to reach the community's notions and decency. cases where women's modesty was compromised, courts also permitted recovery for invasion of privacy when a newspaper published a picture of a woman who skirt had blown over her head to then as now privacy norms were gendered. privacy and between freedom of the present tense if i after the second world war for set -- for several reasons. competition for audience is not only among publishers but also radio and tv broadcasters led to increasingly sensational and invasive material. more generally i think the public was becoming conscious of privacy in all of its meanings and fences. privacy really emerged as a major issue of public concern after the war. and i think there was a panic around privacy but are largely by the advent of new technologies, not unlike today's privacy panic. privacy was seemingly been seized by the media and by governments, employers, researchers, advertisers, marketers, and pollsters. armed with surveillance technologies, including the first primitive computers. courts began to create and extend protections for privacy in a variety of contexts. case griswold versus connecticut claim to find a constitutional right to marital privacy in penumbras and emanations of the bill of rights. the same time protections were expanding, sewer freedoms. boards and legislatures abolished the last vestiges of look and film censorship and rolled back restrictive laws around publishing pornography and libel. inthe supreme court stated its landmark 1964 decision in new york times versus television -- versus sullivan, which gave them the right to criticize public officials, uninhibited robust and wide-open public debate, the essence of a free society. this context on the heels of sullivan and griswold, the supreme court decided to take a case that directly pitted privacy against freedom of the press. this is the subject of my most recent book. in this privacy conscious environment, recognizing a broader right to privacy, with recognition to the constitutional right have any bearing on the individual's right to recover against the press? victims of a harrowing hostage crime who had been published in life magazine. they claimed they had a right to be led the loan -- left alone. the hills want a very large judgment at trial held on appeal. this went up to the u.s. supreme court. richard nixon, who is a practicing lawyer at the time a year before he ran for president and a few years after his disastrous failed attempt to run for the governorship of california actually argue the hills case before the supreme court. nixon's involvement in this case, which he saw as a chance to rebrand himself before the public and exact his long-standing war on the press, is a whole separate interesting story that i described in books. in favor of privacy and nixon sympathetic clients, he wrote a very strongly worded opinion. the constitutional right to privacy is recognized in griswold, bolstering the hills claims to be let alone by the media. his pain was not issued. at the last minute several of the justices swayed by the first theirent switched position, and the majority opinion by justice william in january 1967 suggest that the press had a first amendment right had this press had a right to publish under the first amendment, and that a person should have no expectation of privacy when it came to media exposure in conjunction with newsworthy events. the court suggest that a person waived his right to privacy by virtue of living in a media saturated environment. where was possible to be recorded and publicize it anytime. this case marked a turning point. it seemed to give constitutional validation to the broader interpretation of newsworthiness that had been adopted by many state courts and as a result of later cases it became extremely difficult to win the case against the media. the sexual orientation of a man who tried to keep it private, facts surrounding a suicide and dr. psychiatric history. it was limited to new york lotto the case was brought under. a broadernever been supreme court pronouncement on where the constitution draws the line between privacy and press freedom. it could have been important if appeal to the supreme court. this question of the privacy and press freedom is one we must all assume in our age of surveillance and voyeurism. these legal battles are uniquely american. while european law text free expression, it also has strong protections for dignity that the u.s. does not. i think american law tends to downplay the harms of media invasions of privacy, of traditional stances that people should develop escape. it rose alongside the developments of modern free-speech law and the growth of power media companies. with resources to be back privacy claims. one obstacle we may all faces gauging how ordinary citizens felt about privacy. there has constantly been opinion polls tracking the public's attitude in invasions toward privacy. they are relatively few other sources. there is also this paradox to grapple with. how can people say they value privacy and be so willing to disclose personal facts? be can the public claim to outraged by publications like gawker, yet the sites and publications draw in millions of viewers. many revolve around gauging public attitudes toward privacy. diversely the range and city of those feelings is a challenge. to me as a historian and lawyer, where do we go from here? how can we resolve our very deep conflict and how might history inform the choices that we need to make today. a critical we are at moment, like the 1960's were personal privacy and press freedom presented themselves. >> thanks for my co-panelists and instant panelists. leeann d. this has already been such an interesting kind of point counterpoint on privacy. it by try to add to taking up another strand of privacy discussion. i mostly going to talk about what we think about his data and information privacy. we want to try to connected to some of the other things the panelists have talked about. and actually his last point about how we engage public attitudes is really what i have been interested in, not necessarily the history of privacy law and privacy sensibilities. i will speak to that in my brief remarks. i know that american concerns today in a state of personal privacy are in a very high-pitched, i don't think that is news to anyone. on the one hand we have edward snowden's revelations, we have google glass, we have to runs, we have commercial algorithms. also an issueer, that's a method just raised, we have the rise of the opposite, the rise of self tracking reality-based entertainment and individuals relentless question self exposure in an ever-expanding universe of social medium. hotly debated developments may be contradictory or they may be connect did. i lean toward the latter. they tell us privacy these days is not at all private. privacy has become an essential category. think the central category of american public life. so many things come under his batter -- under its banner. i feel like i have been wrestling with this history and the history of the concept of privacy in american life. history in to how became to fit. was not always a matter of public import. beginning in the late 19th century, increasing number of citizens both claimed a right to and believe their right to privacy to be endangered in one form or another. this is a story still unfolding in the newspaper every day. what makes it especially complicated but also intriguing is the range and diversity of topics that gather under its banner. my panelists already suggested privacy is one of those concepts. media public such olivine is one of those places and the privacy surfaces in american life. america turns to the language of privacy to national security, the suburban architecture, the confessional -- to memoirs. it could drive the historian of privacy little bit crazy. there is one strategy for thinking about this. seemingly incoherent by tempting -- of itste precise spatial and informational strands. interesting -- interesting historical questions lie elsewhere. what the recourse to privacy in such variable circumstances might reveal. what has fascinated me along these lines is when americans invoke privacy they always also , sense philosophies about the modern social order. forcesh institutions and the public and private the place pressures on the individual person. to invoke it in a public setting or in a private one for that matter was to make an argument about the proper boundary between citizens and the larger society. >> my instinct has been to treat privacy is less of a thing or measurable quality than as a index to changing ideas about social life itself. the history of privacy is not reducible to any single storyline. isis that as prominence in the modern united states is linked to the emergence of what i would call a knowing society, a waysty that saw changing to understand to govern and to minister to its members by scrutinizing them in fuller and finer detail. privacy talk could mediate apparels that also the possibility and promise of being known. this framing helps make sense of contrast i began with, demanding to be sheltered from view and others to desire and share and be seen. it accounts for why privacy has moved so insistently to the ground of u.s. political culture. it indicates it will likely remained lost there. across the 20th century americans became known in a new fashion i all kinds of agents these, by state bureaucracies, by law enforcement agents, by the popular press. by scientific researchers, psychological experts, data aggregators and proprietary algorithms. the proliferation of techniques for making citizens knowable from credit reports to cctv cameras could offer opportunity and security that being a note wellll -- being known to could also threaten personal economy. undermining the notion of a freestanding individual. likewise we have to remember that to the unknown and to remain unknown could be in certain context a form of disempowerment, although in others it was a sign of privilege. a socialntifiable to welfare agency, to social security administration so as to retirementefits over doesn't matter than being traceable in a criminal or dna database. given the number and range of parties that aim to know them, modern americans rightly wondered what parts of one's own identity,y, biography, and even psyche have ultimate claim to. how much of one's self should one willingly reveal to others? in what short while knowing a society mean in knowing its embrace? these dilemmas would touch nearly every facet of american life in the 20th century. the history of the known citizen as i have come to think of it is quite winding and unpredictable. it is a challenging history to plot. this was an item first assigned to u.s. workers and the plan was to give individuals a unique identifying number. it is in fact a awards of economic security seems to -- across the midcentury decades the social security number would be a badge of inclusion and expanding welfare state, even a mark of economic citizenship and the longing. it is hard to fathom now there -- was asting market flourishing market. there was jewelry people had embedded with individual numbers. and somewhat further than this, per -- permanently inking in what newspapers heralded as a boon for the tattoo industry. that ended soon after world war ii. although not immediately, interestingly. had thatcurity members specific numbers were broadcast in radio contacts, using advertisements and printed without much noted in the newspaper. both because of the numbers of -- and host to private agencies and the rise of the computer age, a reversal was at hand. social security numbers were recognized as the linchpin of a vast network of databanks that house personal information of nearly every single adult in the united states. their debut social security numbers erupted as a political issue, prompted the creation of a federal task horse, multiple congressional hearings and legislation in the form of a 1974 privacy act. even social security's commissioner would see the agencies record constituted one of the world's largest concentrations of personal data, all of it indexed and much of it instantly retrievable from computer records. the social security number for all kinds of reasons would then become swept into a larger critique of what some called the the 1970's, ain brand-new threat to american civil liberties the a surveillance of their personal data. the career of the social security number revealed held the very son item to be transformed from a semi public badge of social membership into a highly private piece of information as the tech illogical political and bureaucratic ground shifted. traffic moved in the opposite direction. at the very same moment that the social security number was becoming private, what had once been closely guarded secrets were moving out into the open. prodded by watergate, therapeutic culture, and social movements, many by the 1970's inmored for transparency law, politics, and even private life. this was a hallmark of seven wake feminism. -- of second wave them and is him. a documentary film, and lawmakers voluntary at this voluntary disclosure of tax reclaim -- of tax returns. in the emotional tenor of television talk shows and eventually in the outing of gay public figures and celebrities and the publishing of the phenomenon in the 1990's. the exposure secrets came in these years very substance of politics and self making. the primary currency seem to be volubility of one's sins and shames, of drug addiction or sexual abuse. the 1990's would become scorned as the decade of revelations, marked by what one critic called the inexhaustible eagerness of people to tell their life stories. some critics contended that even more worrisome than him proper prying into americans private lives was the extrusion of personal matters into public places. privacy as the great time,t the project of our this is what he was referring to. pleaded than other, is there not something to be said for the unexamined life? insistenceew accompany heightened concerns of it does suggest how potent privacy talk was in helping americans to navigate poll and the push of a knowing society, its rewards as well as its risk. what remains to be seen is whether we can interleave these various streams of privacy talk into a deeper and more satisfying account of how privacy has come to matter. how to chart the shifts in american thinking of intimacy and intrusion and a safe database with the changing social world. how sensibilities of matters and different sexual relationships, physical spaces, personal data, political rights and intellectual freedom moved in concert, or have they moved on their own tracks? what relation does the privacy as the citizens claim bear to their understanding of privacy and -- privacy in other realms, say national security or popular called for? landscapee discursive of privacy so diffuse and spread across a many domains of is indeedife that it incoherent that any attempt to find turning points or logical narratives is simply foolhardy? mind as iis on my finish on the known citizen. it is not only for my unsafe and i hope historians will be open to tackling this question. i think our histories will be better for it. thank you. >> give me a moment since this is on my ipad. on ai wrote last night very long plane ride, longer than a should have been plane ride. thank you. this is a reflection on the wisdom and knowingness of these papers by someone who is less wise and knowing. givers illustrate the protein quality of the term privacy. of sex, protection from sexual material, dueling rights, knowing the american thrusting, what is a doll about? the me use these illuminating papers to make two suggestions. i mean them as speculations. come out of my peculiar background and interests in some recent readings, but these suggestions are generated and stimulated by these papers not founded on any unlike expertise. the first is that we think of privacy through the lens of property law and that we work to track its dimensions in ways that parallel the growth and elaboration of property law as it moved into the 20th century out and away from land to incorporate information and images of the body. as private spaces disappear and private dominions and relationships become contested. if we think of privacy through i makes of property law, that suggestion because one conventional starting point for privacy, speaking more as an early american historian, would be with the 17th century conceptions captured and completely in the fourth amendment that some people, male householders preeminently possess private spaces. possessing improperly governing a household a man became entitled both to self-governance and to participate in a public sphere. and protection of things thrust upon him or images taken. then isy of privacy largely about what happens when such claims move outside of the home toward images of the self and such claims attach themselves that should have remained in private. became unprotected from patriarchy. the story of privacy like the story of property law exposed to commercial and governmental changes that are the conventional wisdom's of 20th century history. toward sacks obviously, but also toward various forms of intellectual property and ultimately to the extent one owns one's information like the social security number. my new colleague has written brilliantly about how privacy gets tied up with involuntary movements and behaviors, involuntary facial expressions, the taking of that which could not be controlled. sex in some ways is a surrogate for that, but she means more the facial expressions of early photography. as with other property claims, other assertions of private dominion, privacy -- to appeal to privacy is to make an argument. young can kennedy once called the fundamental contradiction, every claim to isolation or protection is always matched by a competing need for connection and for identities. and modern americans want many things, only some of which are satisfied by privacy claims. there is a public that wants to know many things. there are commercial interests that understand themselves as understanding -- as possessing a right to thrust into private spaces. there is a claim we feel safer when much is known about others when privacy is limited or violated. about to of mine is finish a senior thesis about an obscure prison rights case in the mid-19th remedies that took place after a ride in the bedford hills women's prison. guards and the prince violate the prisoners privacy rights? on thiss split question, radical feminists versus liberal feminist in a classic debate. eventually the aclu women's rights project led by ginsburg took the side of the union and equalityguards and won trumps privacy, but it was a very close and complicated question. i could go on borrowing the exam. panelists raised so brilliantly. stimulated by releasing these papers. of the paper any givers would agree with this formulation. that is maybe the provocation. to these papers and the books that underlie them lend a period that has ended? do they describe to use the familiar cliches of historical practice, a lost world, a world we have lost, a foreign country? was there an age of privacy? perhaps one that began as property conceptions were freed from land in the late 19th century as information became of the value in addition to the lauren and brandeis article. which may be important, and also the automobile has this weird private space that has lived on public spaces and subject to pervasive regulation. not to mention photography and the penny press. as corporations learn to create and satisfy the demand for and the right to privacy grew and flourished for a time, let's call the 20th and eventually became constitutionalize at least around six drawing on the suspicion of this estate that developed on both the left and the right. and then it ended, when, that is a matter for historical inquiry. but a certain familiar sensibility that is actually all three of the papers is maybe gone today, that is the surveillance that is the foundation for the great john wright of paranoid film making in the 1970's. it is today a ho-hum part of everyday life? f eiagine the cia and the as the good guys. not how i grew up. childhood outf my of sight of my parents, living in the privacy of boyhood in the 1960's. me toould not have wanted buy pornography, or they would have punished me. in the goalied it behind my parents home and no one would know. i never worried about any camera recording me. my grandchildren will never have that experience. the great political theorists published an essay about a decade ago about how meaningful the right of privacy is human flourishing. is aeart of the piece reflection on the affront he feels when he rock -- when he walks through a hard dish walks through a public space, knowing surveillance cameras are watching him. he doesn't have to see them to experience what they are doing to his sense of well-being. hisgeorge is well into 80's, and i fear his world is gone, as any of the reader of the news nose. privacy and it for another date, probably be on my pay grade, i think it is worth thinking about. i have a just for what to look at first. the moments beginning of the 1980's and 1990's with increasingly after 2000, when we voluntarily gave up information for convenience and for things, the moment when all of us signed the boilerplate language that amazon.com to sell an aggregator our information about what we read and what we biden -- and what we buy in exchange for the quick turnaround, the easy past tool and our car that allows us not to wait in line on the turnpike. my paranoid friends have refused to get there easy past. i think they are crazy because i hate to wait in line. be said ande to written about habits of self exposure. as sarah mentioned, both on the web and in memoirs. there is more to be seventh written about the desire for security and safety that leads to acquiescence in pervasive surveillance. resistance seems futile, but still i might start with corporate america. my points are those of a historian, and those who think in terms of. eyes asian. riodization. beginning, and it has now ended. much, if noteriod, all that was thought to be privacy closely tracked a changing domain of property law. you guys can tell me i'm wrong. [applause] >> i'm reluctant to speak on behalf of leeann. she was disappointed not to be here and participate in person. i will state in response to what -- one of theyou -- she was asking them about whether they watch pornography. what really surprised or was that students, both female and male, just assumed that pornography was a first amendment right. as a scholar her of obscenity law. both that and -- in fact, we have a phd student in our program on how we just so easily give up our permission to all of that that does, sort of give credence to sort of think about how, generationally, historically, we need to contextualize what privacy is in different generations. it's a very cogent point. >> i have all kinds of responses to what you laid out there. a quick thing on this -- the property law point, which is that i think that it's right that american notions about privacy have never totally untethered from a property understanding so that ownership gets entangled with ideas about privacy, even as those claims are kind of virtualized to move out to image and information. i've been thinking a lot about how people become owners of their personal information. we think that we own it but it was always owned by other agencies and it's only recently that we have owned that stuff for claimed -- or claimed to own it. that was something people never had access to before the 1970's. this is an interesting issue. , not that this is the golden age of prop -- of privacy. a sociologist that it was the third quarter of the 19th century and that was it. there was this 25 years. i don't think i would agree. i might argue that the beginning -- i willrent moment argue that -- in fact, exactly at the moment that there is a political come a public discussion about the loss of privacy is when something new begins. so, the beginnings of the end of privacy are in fact the beginnings of our modern conceptions of privacy. importantere's a very and new, though importantly -- though historically important discussion going on now. i think our conventions around it are changing as we adapt to ,ew technological, bureaucratic political, cultural landscapes. --o think that surveillance people have argued, are we at the tipping point, are we about to tip into something completely different? they've been arguing that for a long time. are we at the end of something that what was predicted as science fiction in the 1970's is all around us or are we reimagining what privacy can mean in that world? can i say one more quick thing? one element of our current landscape is the use of surveillance against the survey letters. these new words that keep getting invented like doxxing and so forth, they're tools that everybody's got, allowing people to enact surveillance. maybe something that's new in our current moment. >> my response to your comments would be to kind of project this whole idea of beginnings and ends. i think it's ongoing and it's just about shifting the balance. if we think about, do we have more privacy today? the instinctive answer would be no, we have no privacy today. think about the way with which you could live in your home all of the time and not have to go outside and interact? is there some kind of privacy that affords us at the same time that it's stripping us of our privacy? people saying, we all want to publicize ourselves. if you look at the very contentious debates over information privacy that we read about in the news, the whole , that spurs the national discussion on how the media has gone too far and how aspects of life would remain private. we stick privacy in a different balance in different historical periods contingent on technology and other factors. to say there is a golden age or it's gone now doesn't really capture this tension and nuance that i think more accurately describes the story. >> would you please identify yourself? panel.t, great great discussion. -- your talk and then the comment -- you start to move a little bit away from a legal concept or even a part of the culture and get to the complexity, which i think, sarah, you're wrestling with, all the changes in the economy, technology, business, someone incoherently but for me to things that are more solidified -- but formed into things that are more solidified. i think another way to make some sense of this would be to think abandonedf -- kind of something that is impossible to abandon. privacy and surveillance are essentially private -- event -- are essentially power struggles between different actors. i can shield myself from corporate intrusiveness through they say, wehen can't comment on that. universities do it all the time. it's a personal matter, we can't comment on that. it's constantly going back and forth. i think it is important not to allow privacy to be seen as the golden mean -- the golden child. there are ways in which privacy shields people in terms of public figures. world --across the privacy laws keeping personal information out of public hands are using information to prevent -- [indiscernible] >> i wanted to get in on this before we go. the process by which the information that is made public that violates privacy is really slighted in the history of privacy in a way that makes it difficult to put together. by the time we got to the end, we were talking more about surveillance. in our previous discussions of privacy, it wasn't clear. is an interesting disruption event. we talk about whether there was ever privacy. it's clearly not the case. our discussions focus on technology. surveillance without technology. ofot of that periodization privacy gets screwed up. we are drawn too much to the technology. we have had surveillance for a long time with people following people in writing it down. that continues. you talked about the history of privacy, parts that nobody else does. interested inlly hearing you all talk about where why we find it so hard to talk about surveillance at the same time as privacy. it is interesting in that you are not often perceived as violating privacy because they don't publish the information that they find, they share it with a client, and therefore, they are not invading privacy in the same sense that the law deals with it. i find it challenging to attach my narrative of surveillance to the narrative of privacy because it's not public information. in really be interested hearing how you think of the relationship between surveillance and privacy and why we have such a hard time managing to talk about those two things at the same time? people are always watching people. >> i've also been looking a little bit at private investigators who certainly, in the 1950's, as they roam around suburbia and in cities, are considered a privacy threat by people because they are giving up all kinds of information, whether working for insurance agencies, credit agencies, people looking for cheating spouses, or whatever. i don't see a way to really think about the history of privacy without thinking about surveillance. i think there might be a difference between thinking about surveillance in our contemporary sense and surveillance practices which of course -- which of course have always been around. it's helpful for me to think about practices of prying as adding up to something that, by the late 1960's, early 1970's, it's called a surveillance society. i think it might be useful to think about when those practices come to be recognized that the people who live in a society as a really important framework for how the society runs based on of monitoring and observing citizens' behaviors, actions, so forth. i know there are some people who work on surveillance who really don't like the word being attached to all those earlier practices. there's maybe an interesting debate to be had. i do think a surveillance society might be something different than the fact that we know that people are always seeking to know about different people in all periods, eras, places. that may just be a response based on -- >> i would say that there is a surveillance aspect of the privacy story in america in that 20th century. the 1950's. there was a lot of public concern not only about state surveillance but also private detectives and the new technologies coming out, new hidden cameras, recording devices. also, consumer surveillance. department stores, restaurants installing hidden microphones, two-way mirrors. whereis a moment surveillance, not only by state actors but a variety of parties, emerges as a panic. mei think that sounds to like a story of the middle class. it belies the population of the united states to be surveilled. -- these massive multinational private organizations. intruding in working-class populations across the country on a massive scale. the state would take that over in the 30's. private organizations doing surveillance in the 50's. i think the problem with that narrative is that's a middle-class story. the middle-class experiences surveillance. americans,ss african-americans, radicals are subject to a surveillance state from well back in the 19th century. i think we have to be wary about the middle-class experience being somewhat distinctive. the corporations that i think you were talking about in interesting ways rolled surveillance in the first half of the 20th century. >> sarah, vanderbilt law school. i want to ask about some of the comments about property and corporations. i want to ask about the other part, which is the approach to government, public sector investment. the reason this came into my mind is, when you're talking about the case, and that we don't get to talk about the question because gawker went bankrupt and drop the lawsuit, it speaks to how these are determined through private litigation, so we don't necessarily have an open, deliberative process. i think the gawker case has even more layers to it then your description hints at, because peter teel was funding this -- was funding this because he was angry at gawker. you're looking at private wealth, people can find litigation being able to pull questions off the agenda. i'm curious if you can talk -- is some of the anxiety that privacy perhaps because we have a government structure that makes all of those questions kind of subject to private deliberation or corporate decision-making or private litigation rather than a more , which mightebate explain the differences in europe? >> thank you. -- namely, i'm interested in thinking about the corporation and the state, how similar and different they are about privacy. in both cases, you need the state to know you, recognize you, such as a social security number. people who have no id can't access health care or anything. at the same time, part of the worry about state surveillance, because the state authority and power. i think there is an interesting question about corporations in that way. anything to't have do with me. don't you know me better than that? you have so much data on me. corporations are able to profit uses,ay from unintended where i give up certain data because i want to use facebook messenger. >> i spent six years as a board member of the new jersey state aclu board. there was a retreat at one point after 9/11. clearly, there was a whole series of issues. the retreat was to decide which would be the policy priorities of the state aclu board. i was then put on the privacy subcommittee. amazon.comargue that ought to be a privacy concern, the giving up of data. it was a fundamentally older group of civil liberties litigators, they just didn't believe it. for them, the state information was the problem. the voluntary giving up of information just didn't resonate. ago and i a decade would be curious if a similar moment, you would have the same in 2006, they did. >> i'll try to make a quick response to that. one thing that has really intrigued me at looking at this question is the blurriness between corporate and state, especially from the perspective of people worried about privacy. there's not a lot of drawing of lines between those entities in how people think about privacy. a credit report is just as bad as the federal government knowingness about you and so on. it has to do with one thing that i think is really interesting, is that material practices on the ground do not always seem to match up with privacy scares. it's the kind of politics of attention. the things that get attention, of course, have middle-class concerns. we have to think about who the subjects of privacy are. slavery is a surveillance system but we don't think of that in a surveillance way. to my mind, americans have come late to this issue of corporate invasions of privacy, although , my research on social security numbers has shown that americans were much more willing to trust the state that employers on information. they saw the state as an intermediary between themselves and their employers. there a very mixed history. is to sayr tendency that americans fear the state most, but i don't think that's right. yourself?ou identify >> having this discussion. -- we were having this discussion. a health care company had her come in and they took all of this data. the carrot is, we'll get lower health care costs if you give us all this data. you put on a fitbit even you go to the gym. they give you coupons, they pay for your gym membership, all of this. we talked about that. this corporation, this health care company has all of this. what if they take away conditions -- what the state takes away protections for pre-existing conditions? what if the state comes in and now tells that corporation, you can use that data not to give that person health care. kind of scary. woodford, university of texas at dallas. the discussion seems to indicate that privacy is kind of an individual good, or at least -- or at least that seems to be formulated as an individual good. i don't hear much about family rights, thinking of any intermediary social formation that is not an individual sort of right. i'm wondering about that, is thatjust a characteristic does come to a kind of property law formulation, and is just about individual control, and therefore, everything that is an invasion of privacy and revolves around individual rights? >> it obviously shaped the discussion. it doesn't mean there could be an alternative. >> you're saying that there haven't been alternatives -- maybe in law, but there haven't been alternative formulations throughout american history of a different distinction between the public and the private that involves some other association or level of social life that carries some kind of private protection? not the log necessarily, but in cultural conception. >> public decency has been invoked, so that would be an example. >> also, as derek pointed out, sort of proprietary, 19th-century ideas, household. aggregate privacy. there was no privacy at all for women in the 19th century. but also, corporations have privacy. there are plenty of collections. also, social groups. one of the interesting debate that emerges is about the rights of groups and how they will be known in public. african-american residents of a housing project, do they have a kind of collective privacy in terms of their representation? lots of different -- i think the american idiot is very individual -- the american idiom is very individualistic. >> you were doing history of public parks and what does it mean to be in public parks. there was always a certain level of private freedom to have a barbecue in a public park which is understood as associational. having sex in public is not on that line. certainly, having gay sex is not a private freedom. , the collective good of being able to make -- have private space within this public space, i think, the early makers of the public parks thought in those ways. i wonder, just again to play my periodization car, -- my periodization carved -- my , havingation card cameras in public parks changes that dynamic. kids can still play particular slightly forbidden games in one corner of the park without thinking someone is going to watch them. it changes the dynamic. it may be makes it much more sharply felt, the distinction between public safety and children having to be protected, whatever the public rhetoric is and the individual freedom. i do think surveillance is an important one. >> one of the events of the late 19th century was the advent of the secret ballot. , doesr historiography that influenced the way people thought about that? i have an undergraduate student write on this topic, totched from private balance fcc transparency, the fair election commission. when this privacy seem to enable public action and deliberation and when does it seem to impede at? -- impede it? i think that's an interesting way to think about political privacy, another interesting stranded all of this. what does political privacy mean, what is it good for? in that sense, i think it's another really interesting dimension in another difficult to get your head around subject. >> one more question. >> i think we are bank 12:30 -- i think we're 12:30. >> thank you also much. [applause] you're watching american history tv. 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter @cspa nhistory for the latest schedule and to keep up. >> this weekend, author lynne cheney discusses president madison's personality, health problems, and political career. following her lecture, she sits down to talk about her writing process and madison's relationship with the other founders. nne: madison made many decisions, but perhaps the dolly -- wasry marrying dolly. wasaught sight of her and instantly smitten. this happened regularly to men who saw dolly. hair, a complexion she had learned to shield from the sun. she came from a quaker family which had not, for her, been a good fit. she was inclined for the gaieties of the world, one quaker woman wrote. thatker matron recalled of , during an effort to convince dolly of the seriousness of life, the young girl first smiled and then afterwards fell fast asleep. the 26-year-old dolly was recently widowed. her husband john had died in a yellow fever academic the year before madison saw her, and so had her three-month-old baby, leaving her with a son who was two. 43 -- dolly iss 26, madison is 43 -- turned to aaron burr. related inou're not the 18th century united states, everybody knew everybody. he turned to ehrenberg because burrnd bu -- to aaron because they had gone to princeton together, and arranged an introduction. dolly was thrilled at the prospect. to see me this evening. dolly war mulberry satin and yellow beads to greet james and her parlor. four months later they were married. >> watch the entire program with author lynne cheney at 2:00 p.m. eastern on sunday. this is american history tv, only on c-span three. announcer: on "lectures in history," university of washington professor margaret o'mara teaches a class about the 1968 president election and the events that impact the outcome. she talks about how the vietnam political support for johnson and helped lead to his decision not to seek reelection. she also describes month by month events that led up to the election like student protests, the rise of the black power movement, and the assassinations