 John, why don't we turn now to you to John Palfrey. How did you get into privacy? Your class, Jonathan, Internet and Society, maybe 1999. Those were good times. Even back then, so you started with, this is yet another privacy conference. But I think even in the late 90s, you were saying this is yet another class on privacy with respect to cyberspace. Oddly, you've always seemed bored by the topic and yet always come up with more and more insights into it over time and seem to return to it. John is perfectly home to the art of, was that a compliment or an insult? I don't know. Total compliment and also fun. So it was value and actually the struggle in a way of what to say yet another privacy conference is made easy, I think, by the continued insights that you have, the idea of generativity itself, I think builds on that. And every time you learn something new about cyberspace, you create new problems in privacy, which I think is partly why we're back here. As we build more and more of this built space or design more of it, we come up with new and more intriguing problems. And I don't think we've solved yet the design problem of how to live a balanced life as between public and private in a cyber environment. And it seems to me that's sort of core to what's here. And huge credit to Judith and Jeff, along for pulling together this wonderful interdisciplinary group to talk about it. And you said earlier what was the punchline of the joke. Lawyers are usually the punchline of the joke, right? So you've left us for last, so I guess we're the punchline. But I think the reason that we're also engaged in this and interested in this is that lawyers on some level are also designers of spaces. I think that we like to hang out with Jeff Huang and Laurent and others because we perceive that we are designers of institutions and rule sets and so forth that make these spaces not just have low thresholds, but also have inviting environments where we can thrive over periods of time. And again, I think privacy is one place where we as lawyers haven't done a great job yet in determining what that rule set ought to be like. I wanted to hit three points that I think grabbed somewhat what Paul and Laurent have been saying, but maybe also throw some things forward to some later sessions. The first is the importance I think of the human experience in this space and Dana Boyd I think is the great expert on this and we'll be hitting it later. I think her basic insight that we are public by default and private through effort or private by design is a very important one in this environment. Also key to that the work that Dana's been doing, but lots of us also in focus groups and interviews and so forth learning from people, both young people and older people, that baby back there and up through the oldest person in the room that in fact, while I think many of us have the initial instinct that people don't care that much about privacy in this space, that simply isn't true. That I think we're learning much more as we live in this space that though we often trade convenience for control, we very often give information about ourselves out. You've always pointed out in that class way back then the CVS card or the Shah's card that you get 30 cents off the butter even though that might later make your insurance rates go up and so forth, we do it anyway, that we care about it in particular context and trying to understand that human behavior is I think crucial to the story and I think that's in part where Paul started us off with and that's a changing set of practices. Morse and I are now doing focus groups with kids again after three or four years of hiatus from it and hearing them talk about privacy in ways that they clearly at least in this tiny sample are more thoughtful about it. I think we are coming to greater and greater recognitions about the kinds of trade-offs that we're making and yet even in understanding these trade-offs not making great decisions, not necessarily yet having the handholds or the tools or the means to give expression to the things that people want as our sort of desires in terms of what to keep private and from whom and in what context. And again, I wanna throw this forward to Dana who I'm sure will talk more about that set of trade-offs later. The second one I think is sort of a classic lawyer's problem that we've dealt with for hundreds of years which is the intersection between the public and the private. We've debated this in many respects. The sort of obvious debates over this are the design of how the Fourth Amendment works for instance and it's analogs around the world. The basic question of when somebody, ideally in this case the state wants to get information about you, what are the rule sets that say you can under these circumstances by getting this kind of a warrant and this kind of a way and the extent to which in this environment things like the Fourth Amendment haven't been good tools for us because of the blurring of what is public and private and also the extent to which when things are in private hands, in other words they're held by a private player like a Facebook, the same rules don't apply. This is called the third party exception or third party doctrine. There are lots of ways in which our old designs of these spaces fit the rule system relatively well but in this new environment, this much more blurry environment those rules don't work as well and we haven't yet done the hard work to reimagine how those protections and those kinds of trade-offs ought to get played out particularly in a space where so much of the time it's private actors who control what are the public spaces and I'm sure we'll continue to talk about that theme. And then the third one I think is just to to reflect on the basic notion of the systems that we've built for the internet and social media and other things that go on top of it and sticking with the Goal and Foursquare and Scavenger example of the kind of check-in applications. I think the systems that tend to work best are ones that are highly interoperable with one another, right? So we don't want to have to type in to five different systems, my status update. I am in MD, Maxwell Dworkin, G115 at Pound Hyperpublic sitting next to at Ethan Z, right? You want to type that once and have that broadcast into a whole lot of different systems so that if Jenny Toomey is on Goala and Dana Boyd is on Scavenger they'll all see the same thing and the systems that are most highly interoperable have the most open APIs, have the most apps, those are the ones that succeed. Android passing, you know, the iPhone now with the number of installs and so forth. So we favor that most highly interoperable of systems as a design matter and we think of that as good for innovation, consumer choice, competition, all these things and yet that itself is one thing that gives rise to the problems of privacy in this environment, right? The extent to which we favor these things that do broadcast or, as you would say, promiscuous publication of this information across lots of platforms then leads to information seeping out of different contexts, the contexts that Dana and others say are so important. So as a design matter, getting back to these images, an image that came to my mind is the image of a breakwall. The idea that sometimes what we need to have in these systems between open systems is places where as between a harbor, a safe harbor and then a crashing sea, we need places that the data can either be slowed or stopped in instances in which you actually want safe harbors for the data that sometimes may be able to connect to the crashing sea but may not or places for the ships to pass and so forth. I don't think we've been as good about figuring out what do the breakwalls look like in these systems as we rush toward a highly interoperable system for reasons that are good, the innovation and generativity and so forth are good things, but I think we're now realizing the need to put up and maybe speed bumps to use a Charlie Nessan phrase is another way to think about it but ways that the data flow in ways that give the user much more control about when they go from one context to the other and I think that lots of the business models and lots of the kinds of public policy approaches have favored more data in more people's hands to throw more ads at it, to have more innovation, to spend more venture capital in it, to get more IPOs and so forth, right? That's been the cycle. So to me, it's as lawyers coming back in along with designers and others and saying, no, we haven't quite gotten this balance, right, and how do we do that? It's funny because it feels like you've you've basically given Lorenz's talk a second pass because you're talking all about thresholds and the ways in which I think implicit in Lorenz's talk was the way in which breaking down thresholds tends to be good, not entirely, not complete open space, but I don't, I think I maybe, this is me being a lawyer, perhaps I'm misrepresenting what Lorenz says. My argument was not about if it's good or not, it was first of all a kind of overview what is happening. Yeah, but I look at that Seattle Public Library and I say what makes it so interesting is that it has really played with thresholds and lowered them, right? But there are other examples actually, like the airport, which is just incredible. The Seattle airport? No, it's yet the conventional airport. And airport. Where thresholds and boundaries are extremely important. Extremely important. Yes, that's the total recall image you had. But I was trying to say something as a normative matter rather than a descriptive one, which is to say the descriptive matter is yes, we have lowered walls, and I think in some sense we favor lower walls. The Berkman Center itself favors low walls to have more people participate in our work or for us to learn more from others, right? As an example, or again you're building, you know, the next goala or force court, you want low walls, but I think that there are costs. Yes. Too permanently low walls, ones that are eliminated, and I think we have to think about how we work with that. To be able to just say one tweet and have it hit all platforms, arrested, as the person in Egypt did when he was arrested, then managed to have a lot of dominoes fall on his behalf. But then if you say something and want to take it back, it can be awfully hard to do. Or to selectively release it. It may be calls to mind back to Urs's opening example of Google Street View, which of course is also a great mix of the technological and the architectural, the landscape architectural, and our notions of private and public. And while it's only on the public street, you can imagine people would feel differently about Street View if it came up your front walk and dropped off a pamphlet and at the same time filmed its trip up your... Ah, it's going to... Trispass. That's my front walk. Right. No solicitors if you have a camera. But I then see it being taken to the next step in a hypothetical that I heard from Charlie Nessin prior to 1999. Charlie's been into life streaming since before there were streams. He's streaming you right now. Watch out. I... You know what? I think Charlie actually is relaxed because he's like, nah, someone else is streaming it at this point. It's someone else hasn't covered. But there was a time when Charlie, if not actually doing it, which he did. Oh, yep, there's his recorder. He aspired to a world in which basically he could wear a hat. Instead of it having twin cans of beer with straws coming into it, his hat has two recording devices. Yeah, no, I wasn't going there. Two recording devices and a camera and a microphone. And just as he walks around, you can, you know, you can ride along with Charlie's homunculus. Like that's the program. And see the world he sees. And he almost sees it as freedom of mind to be able to choose to do that as a person. But of course we connect that up with what you were just talking about in your interop zone. And you see a world in which that can be made interoperable and part of a market. So that I can say, gee, I was curious who was going in and out of Maxwell Dworkin today. And there's some query I can shape which immediately goes across the database of people like Charlie who've been life streaming and figures out for the past 30 days who was in front of Maxwell Dworkin with a decent view of the door more or less, and then give me an account of everything that was going on across all of their freedoms to have recorded it. And that seems profoundly weird to me. That makes the can Google film my front walk seem like a somewhat small problem next to the world we are building interoperably among ourselves. I don't know if you have reactions to that. I didn't end that with a question mark. I think you said it, as usual, the teacher better than I could the student. Well, you're a very kind fellow teacher.