 Okay, so let's focus on what we agree on for sure. I mean, I think we mostly agree, but we have some quibbles because certainly government has not upheld it. It's end of any bargain that I ever would have wanted to make with it even given this disgusting context we're in. So stealth power grabs, here we go, right? Because what are they doing? They are using this as an excuse. And this is true of the leftist liberal politicians. This is true of conservatives, including Trump and everybody. They're pushing their pet agendas and they're using this coronavirus as a cover-up for it. The one thing that was on my radar personally, of course, that is egregious, I believe, is that we saw an opinion just kind of pushed out there. And I think it's been pretty quiet in terms of news about it. It is the United States versus Facebook case that I was involved with the Center for Legalization of Privacy. This is the case where the FTC goes after Facebook for alleged violations of user privacy and basically they have a settlement order, an agreement that they have under which the government takes all sorts of control over the corporate governance of Facebook for the next 20 years and also has given to the FTC and the DOJ tremendous amount of access to information, extensive information in the words of Judge Kelly will be given to the FTC and the DOJ in order to enforce a consent decree that is meant to protect Facebook user privacy. My concern is that they are going to have warrantless access to actual Facebook user data. The FTC and the DOJ are going to have this. And when I read the order last year, I identified a few places in the text of the settlement order that arguably could be used to gain access to the data. And if you think about it, what is it that they say that they're enforcing? They're enforcing certain conditions, certain rules with respect to Facebook's handling of user data. How are they going to check up on Facebook as to whether they are meeting the requirements unless they actually can see Facebook's handling of user data and therefore see Facebook user data, right? So there's a risk here. And I filed the amicus brief last October while I was sick in a hospital, I mean, not in the hospital in a hotel room. I was in a hospital at one point, but I was in the hotel room when I wrote the brief, sent it off there and it turned out that the judge did order both Facebook and the government to respond to the arguments, the fourth amendment arguments I made. I said, you should not give the government warrantless access to Facebook user data as a remedy for Facebook invading our privacy. It's ridiculous, you don't create big brother as a remedy. Well, you're penalizing us in the name of penalizing Facebook. Yeah, exactly, exactly. And so what I got back from both the government and Facebook, if you compare the two, it was quite revealing because the government, and again, go to legalizeprivacy.org if you wanna read all the details, I am going to characterize it and kind of cartoonize it a bit here. But what the government essentially said was, na, na, na, na, na, we can have the data, and we've been able to have it for decades. And as you said, the existing law, blah, blah, blah. Now, what I argued in the brief is that the law seems to be turning in favor of protection of user privacy. And if you applied the recent ruling in Carpenter to the issue of Facebook data that you would get a very different answer than what the government thinks you would get. But anyway, they said, hey, yeah, of course we're entitled to the data. What are you talking about, you poor amateur, right? And then Facebook in their one paragraph response says, oh, no, there is law such that the government can't get warrantless access to the data, and here it is, and so your concerns are unfounded. And so those are two different answers, right? The government's was, yeah, we can have it, and so your concerns are insane because we get to have it, the government always wins. And Facebook says, no, they don't get to have it. We think there's some law that protects us, and I'm telling Facebook, no, sorry, there isn't law that is protecting Facebook users and you have failed us, the Facebook user. You have sold out, you have no principles. Why aren't you shrugging, Mark Zuckerberg? That's my view. Anyway, I was hopeful that the judge was gonna see at least this discrepancy between them and recognize that there's a fourth amendment issue in his order, this opinion, and you can see it again at legalizeprivacy.org at that blog post, you can read the whole order. He makes no mention of concern about fourth amendment issues whatsoever. The one sentence in which he even says anything relevant to the fourth amendment concerns is which he says that the FTC and the DOJ are going to have access to extensive information from Facebook, but then he goes on to say as the last part of the sentence that it's pursuant to enforcing this order and making sure Facebook doesn't behave badly with respect to your privacy. So they're ignoring it entirely. I'm trying to figure out if there are any next steps and I'm talking to other friends in the public interest litigation space because I'm it in privacy, right? In terms of privacy, most of the organizations are very statist, leftist in nature and in this case, it was a leftist epic that Judge Kelly chose to listen to. He was saying, oh yeah, you're right, maybe this isn't hard enough on Facebook, but it's not my job as a judge to do that. The people who can be harder on Facebook or Congress, there needs to be legislation and regulation. And that's just sad that none of them are scared about the uniting of government and Facebook, which to me is an Orwellian nightmare. They need to be worried about this. They need to be concerned about this. And this is a significant step towards uniting Facebook and government. It's scary. And it's not just Facebook. It'll go beyond Facebook. It'll go to other places. No, I mean, I think that's right. And I think the consequence of all this is going to be greater state power. And the internet stocks have gotten a breather here because everybody's talking about coronavirus. But in a Trump second term or in a Biden first term or whatever, breaking up big tech and going after big tech and regulating big tech and controlling big tech is going to be a huge agenda item. Well, and they're gonna slip it in. That's one of my other stealth power grabs that they're talking about. And they're gonna keep slipping in little things and then they'll do the big stuff because the fact is they don't need to slip it in because the American people agree with them. No, and that's true. And so on the left, you basically have people willing to take over any business for any reason. And then on the right, you first of all- Take over businesses if they run by leftists. That's the call center approach. Yes, that's perfect. By a leftist, it's okay for the government to be never run it over. If it's a conservative CEO, then we're fine. So all the high tech companies need to hire conservative CEOs and stealth conservative CEOs. And then they'll be fine. Or actually not stealth because otherwise still you're good. It's gotta be- All the tech companies need to have a very out there public CEO with a MAGA hat on. And then they'd be safe. That's right. There's no question. Essentially. That's all governing through noses. This is so sad. Okay, so- Absolutely true. I mean, it's absolutely the case. So this is, I think, one huge problem that this order has been approved while everybody's distracted by the coronavirus. If you want to help me try to pursue something else, again, with respect to Facebook, it may end up being futile, but this is a battle to fight and there are other battles to fight. Go to LegalizePrivacy.org. The other one that we need to watch out for, and you've probably heard about this as well, the so-called Earn It Act, that they're maybe gonna pass during this time as well and it's gonna go quietly and no one's gonna pay any attention to it. There are people paying attention to it, but the mainstream media and stuff, and if you talk to Tucker, Tucker doesn't wanna hear about this. He wants to talk about coronavirus and he wants to talk about, let's make fun of Joe Biden and whatever. He would support it. Well, I think he would support the Earn It Act as well. And how could you not, right? If you're a so-called conservative because what is this framed in terms of, it is framed in terms of protecting people, especially the victims of child pornography, right? And so how could you be against clamping down on child pornography? How could you possibly be? I always do that, but it's aimed really at undermining encryption and undermining privacy online. And it's just horrific. No, and think about it. Think about it, Yaron. So they've got us all in our houses and all of us right now, most of us anyway, we're conducting communications through our regular channels by Zoom and all that. Now, right now the third party doctrine is still in effect, which means that as you and I are sharing information with Zoom or any of these other means of communication that are not encrypted, government can obtain access to any of this without a warrant at any time. And who knows what in the world they're doing behind the scenes right now, okay? The only way for us to have private communications right now, while we're all stuck in our homes separately and we're not allowed within six feet of each other and the blah, blah, blah, right? End to end encryption is it and they want to remove that toy from- They've wanted this for a long time, right? They were against Apple protecting data on the iPhone. They've been against a lot of these encryption services. I mean, governments all around the world hate these in Christian services and they're just looking for a way in, they're looking for a way to explain, to kind of justify it to the American people and justifying in terms of child pornography is the master stroke because- No, and listen, you know- It's the bill that protects children. Talk about stealth, right? I mean, there's many of us who are wise to their techniques, but this bill, it never says encryption anywhere in there. The mechanism by which I understand it is probably going to try to ban encryption is the following. You put together some 19-member committee of people who are gonna be authorized to send best practices, advisories or whatever they're gonna call them, decrees to the tech companies. And the best practices are gonna be best practices for eliminating the sharing and the proliferation of child pornography because if you don't allow it to be shared, there's no market for it, who's gonna make it, blah, blah, blah, right? You're gonna reduce the amount of child pornography if you can make sure that it's not shared anywhere. So what is the very best way to ensure that there's no child pornography shared is to make sure that you can have access to everything that is shared on the internet at all, whether through end-to-end encryption or otherwise. So this 19-member committee is gonna say, you must stop offering end-to-end encryption as a service because people are using end-to-end encryption to send child pornography to each other. How dare they, right? So they'll do that. And then you ask, well, how in the world can they get the companies to do this because offering end-to-end encryption is not a crime last time we checked, right? You're allowed to offer a service to your users. The way they do it is by saying that if you don't comply with our recommendations, then you are not going to get the favor, the special favor of liability release under section 230. Remember our friend, section 230? I'm gonna end up in the section 230 is misinterpreted and abused and the whole way in which that is dealt with. I mean, all of that law should be rewritten because it's so ambiguous and stupid and anti-freedom. So, but yes, they're gonna use that in order to manipulate companies and they're gonna use anything they can. And if it's not child pornography, we know they'll use terrorism and they tried for years to use terrorism and I guess terrorism didn't work that well. So now they're moving to child pornography because that seems to be much more effective. Traffic in child pornography is people never vote against stuff like that. No, and so yeah, they get your emotions stirred up. How could you possibly be against a thing? You guys are not depressed enough because of the lockdowns. Amy has put a whole program together here to get you- Showing you all the things that they're doing while you're distracted by the lockdowns, yeah. So yeah, so that we need really to keep their feet to the fire on earn it. And some of our friends in Congress are doing that. People like Amash and everything, but this is bad news. The other thing that I wanna bring your attention to with regard to threats to privacy. Again, this is one more that I have on my radar. Trump is focusing his attention on the, what is he calling it? COVID-4 is the next tranche as they call it, right? They go, you have tranches of money. They're just, you know, how many tranches are necessary? And they had, did you watch Munchin the other day? So he wants to have this infrastructure. Oh, you don't watch these? I don't watch news. He is a pro in terms of just throwing the fallacies out there to deflect. He's much better than Trump even. Trump, you know, oh my gosh. So they wanna have what they call COVID-4, I guess, which is gonna be the next big spending bill. And it's supposed to be focused on infrastructure. And one of the things that they talked about the other day. COVID-5, they missed one. We should tell Mnuchin you can't count. Oh, okay. 14, four bills. There have already been four bills. Okay, so we can't count. Well, they were counting about four the other day. This one's about eight, then it was about 32, then it was 2.2 trillion. Now it's just the one that passed now is 450 billion. And now we're talking about the fifth one. Okay, so the fifth one is gonna be infrastructure. Okay, so actually it could be my not counting right. It could be in any event. So they are going to talk about infrastructure and broadband in particular. They want to subsidize broadband. And what do you think is going to be in that bill along with the subsidies for broadband? Control, you don't subsidize something without controlling it. You don't bail somebody out without taking control of a stuff. So they wanna control. Broadband is the way we get our internet. And if they control it, super bad. I mean, yeah, everything about this crisis is leading towards more government control of our lives. There's no- Yes. And if- What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broad. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.