 Good morning, my name is Michael Scheer, the President of the Department of Education, I'm going to talk to you today about the right to privacy or perhaps the lack of the right to privacy. So let me tell you about who I am. My apologies ahead of time. If I talk fast, I got about eighty-five slides. I want to go through most of this stuff. We'll get through as much of it as I can, but if I gloss over something feel free to ask a question. If you're in the press, yes you have permission, you could take my picture, but don't take pictures of other people without asking them. I'm the owner of at my own company, it's called Leverage Consulting. Spent eight and a half years in the Navy as an EA 6B Prowler electronic communications officer. Thank you, thank you. Did some aerial combat missions over Afghanistan and Iraq, and I also spent nine months on the ground with the U.S. Army doing counter-ID operations. Also a founding member of the Church of Wifi, an unallocated space, which is a central Maryland hacker space and a father of four. So one of the things that I'd like to do, one of the things that speakers do in the beginning of a talk is they tell you about who they are, and it's sort of like their way of saying, well, why am I qualified to talk about this? Well, I'm not, but I'm gonna tell you anyway. I run a blog called The Assault on Privacy. Basically post articles to government invasions of privacy, so if you just Google Assault on Privacy, it's the first hit you'll find. So that's one of the things that I've done. I've done that for about a year now. I'm also one of the founding members, I'm an unallocated space, which is a central Maryland hacker space, and I host a monthly night called Flexure Rights Night, and what we do is we talk about political and civil rights, privacy rights, free speech rights, photographers' rights, and just talk about those issues and how they impact us, how to deal with, you know, with police encounters and that sort of thing. So that's why I'm sort of qualified. Why you should be skeptical about it is something I have to say. Most people don't say why they're not qualified to talk about it and I'm gonna tell you. First of all, I'm not a lawyer. I'm gonna talk about the Fourth Amendment a lot today and the right to privacy, but I'm not a lawyer, so, you know. My presentation is biased by how I grew up and where I grew up and the experiences that I had, which are different from every single one of you. This isn't a political presentation, I wouldn't come here and try to push my political beliefs on you, but this presentation is influenced by politics, inevitably, so there's gonna be some of that. So I tell you that ahead of time. And then the bottom line, don't take my word for it. At the end of the slide deck, which is already online and I'll show you the links to all the articles and everything I cite on here. If you question what I say, then go read the article and come to your own conclusion. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. This is more of an awareness presentation. Part one, we're gonna go through about a thousand years of history in about, well, maybe 10 minutes. And this is sort of the most important part of the presentation, which is sort of ironic because this forms the basis for everything we talk about. So history, the right to privacy, well, what is the right to privacy? Can somebody tell me where in the Constitution is the right to privacy? Anybody? Is there the word privacy in the Constitution or the bill of rights anywhere? No, there isn't. So we have privacy provisions in the Constitution and the bill of rights. The First Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment all have privacy provisions, but we don't have a generic right to privacy. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that there is a right to privacy. However, that's a court that's not based on a document that's based on what the court says. What courts change, rights change. Not necessarily in a good way. So where does it come from? So that's the background, the history part of this. Well, we can go all the way back to about 1215 in the Magna Carta. So you see a lot of the stuff is we're going back to England. So why do we go back to England? Well, most of our law is based on English common law. The colonists came over from England and they brought a lot of this stuff even though they had problems with the English, they had problems with the way things with the king. They brought a lot of this stuff along. That's all they knew. So they just adopted that. So the laws in the colonies and in England are very similar in terms of where they came from. So the Magna Carta was the first proclamation of rights for citizens. And the Magna Carta, which you can obviously read here based on this high quality document that I'm showing you, said that the king's will was not arbitrary. I mean, this is very historic. They basically said, just because the king says something doesn't mean it has to be true. There's a quote in the Magna Carta that says no free man should be taken or imprisoned or diseased of his liberties, but by the law of the land. Basically saying the law is more important than man. Well, we backtracked a little bit. And we came to a time in the 17th century where a prevailing theory was the divine right of kings. That the monarch divides his right to rule from God and that he can basically just do whatever he wants. He's not subject to the law or even to church. And this theory was used to justify absolute monarchism. In other words, the king was above the law, he could do whatever he wanted. There are a couple legal cases that I'll talk about and these are famous in Fourth Amendment history. Semain's case, 1604. These two guys Gresham and Beresford, they lived together. One of them died and he left his papers to a third guy who didn't live there. And the sheriff of London came and he just kicked down the door and he said, you know, I'm coming to get these papers for this guy. And Sir Edward Koch, who was later in parliament said, the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as his defense against injury and violence as for his repose. And this is actually a very historic and important quote because this forms really the basis for a number of doctrines in our politics in terms of the Fourth Amendment and how many of you are familiar with the Castle Doctrine? The Castle Doctrine is basically that once you're inside your home, you can defend yourself and that's where this comes from. This Castle Doctrine comes from this time period. There was a book published called Lex Rex in 1644. Lex Rex meaning the law and the prince but it really meant the law is king. In other words, the king is not that important but he's not above the law. This was written by Samuel Rutherford, defends the rule of law, limited government and constitutionalism. This attacks the divine right of kings. Of course he was charged with high treason and the book was burned. The glorious revolution of 1688, we get the English Bill of Rights. This is the end of absolute monarchism. You can see how fast we're flying through history here. We had the English Bill of Rights which was no royal interference with the law, no taxation without a prerogative, civil courts and so the courts run by the government instead of the church, freedom of petition, the right to bear arms, no cruel and unusual punishments. These look very interesting, don't they? This is really the basis of our Bill of Rights. So at the time in the colonies and in England there was a thing called Brits of Assistance and Writs of Assistance were issued by the king and these were what were called general warrants. General warrants were issued by the king and they basically said, I don't like what X, Y, Z is doing. If you happen to see him, arrest him. And the reason we call them general warrants is because there was no particularity requirement. In other words, in a warrant today, when you're served with a warrant or someone comes with a warrant, they're supposed to say what they're searching for. We're searching for computers and CDs and whatever and we're searching your house at this address. General warrants or Writs of Assistance had no such requirement and they didn't have a timetable. You get a warrant now, it says you have to serve it within a certain amount of time. General warrants, once they were issued by the king, were, and until the king died, they could be served at any time. George II died in October of 1760 so his Writs of Assistance were going to expire. And Charles Paxson, who was a British Customs was always trying to get these warrants or these Writs of Assistance renewed the new king. James Otis, who was a Boston attorney, basically said, you know what, these warrants should have something, they should say something in them. They should say, what are you searching for? They should have time requirements, they're problems. Anyway, Paxson ended up winning this case but someone in the courtroom who watched James Otis was John Adams and John Adams said that James Otis' attack on the Writs of Assistance was really the first seeds of the rebellion in the American colonies. Another quote of importance from William Pitt, the poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all force of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the king of England cannot enter. All of his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. Again, this is reinforced in the castle doctrine. Inside your house, the king, not just being the king himself, but the king and his forces and his agents can't just come into your house without reason. Some other cases, which I'm going to skip over because they just don't have time. And again, these will be in the slides, Wilkes versus Wooden and Tick versus Carrington. These are cases now in the colonies where newspaper, guys who wrote newspapers, radical newspapers, were being arrested and rounded up for their writings. Again, Lord Camden in this case condemned the practice of general warrants. Malcolm Affair, again this took place in Boston. They searched Malcolm's home, which was also his business, and he had a cellar that was locked. And he said, okay, you can come into my home right here, but my cellar's locked, you can't go in there. So they returned with a warrant, but he had locked the house and they couldn't do anything. And at this point, James Otis, who I talked about earlier, it's suspected perhaps he was setting up a case. He was like, well, let's see how far they're willing to go so we can go back to court, provoking another lawsuit. So we see all this history in the colonies and in England and we see that now becoming into documents written by the founding fathers. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which is another document that is a source for the Bill of Rights, condemns the practice of general warrants. State constitutions. So there were 10 state constitutions adopted between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Three of them expressly condemned general warrants. Three of them had provisions which were more or less the same as our current Fourth Amendment. And the rest of those states basically incorporated the current English common law, which basically said, hey, general warrants are bad. Just gonna fly, again, we're flying through history because they just don't have too many slides. So there's three key historical concepts that what I wanna talk about that from all this history that we get. And the first one is reasonableness. And some people have said that the word reasonable is perhaps the most litigated word in American history. We see later on the word unreasonable in the Fourth Amendment. Well, what does that mean? What does this reasonable mean? What does that mean 200 years ago? What does that mean now? We also see the practice of general warrants being condemned and that warrants require time, place, particularity. So that's your history lesson. How did I do? 10 minute, oh, pretty good. Part two, let's talk about the Fourth Amendment. So here's the words of the Fourth Amendment. I'm not gonna read it to you, but I want you to concentrate on the words that are in bold because we're gonna talk about those. Here we see the word unreasonable search and seizure. Warrants, probable cause, and particularly, particularly. So this is saying that let's kind of take some logic from this. Is it possible that there could be a search which is reasonable and therefore does not require a warrant? Yes, the Fourth Amendment says that explicitly. There could be some searches which are reasonable that don't require a warrant. But if they do require a warrant, they have to be based on probable cause, which is a legal standard, supported by oath or affirmation, which means a judge has to sign it, and the particularity requirement, which says it can't just be a general warrant. It has to say what you're searching for. Now, I did mention that some of the other amendments have privacy provisions. You read the First Amendment, it doesn't look like it has privacy provisions, but it does. The Freedom of Association, the Freedom of Anonymous Association, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, which was not really litigated at all, and the Fifth Amendment, which gives you self protection against self incrimination, which is certainly a privacy provision. But we see here there's no general, there's no general right to privacy. So we rely mostly on the Fourth Amendment. I know you can't read this, and I do this for a reason. This is the first of three pages of a law school criminal procedure outline, mostly dealing with the Fourth Amendment. When I talk about all those words that were bolded being important in litigation, this is why, because all these things, the Fourth Amendment, while it reads nice and smooth to us, once lawyers start tearing it apart, this is what you get. Again, this is the first of three pages. And we're gonna talk about a few of these things. As a matter of fact, I kind of narrowed it down to this. And this is what we're gonna talk about. And these are important questions on why we see searches, we see things going on, that doesn't seem right. Why did these things work out the way they do? So here's some key questions that we're gonna talk about. Was the action performed by the government? Was there a reasonable exploitation of privacy? And of course we're gonna have to define that because what does that mean? Was there a warrant? And was the warrant proper and executed? So now here we're in the second part of our section, we're just gonna talk about the Fourth Amendment. So was the action performed by a government? Let's say that you're going out to your favorite bar and you get patted down by a bouncer at the door. And you feel that that was far too intrusive, it was an intrusive search of you. Have your Fourth Amendment rights been violated? No, unless that bar is run by the state government or the federal government, it's a private place. You have no Fourth Amendment rights against a private institution. Or your neighbor comes and kicks down your door. You can't sue him for violating the Fourth Amendment rights because you don't have any Fourth Amendment rights against him. However, police, federal agents, local law enforcement, whatever. The action, the search, the seizure has to be formed by the government. This is the state action doctrine. It's very important because a lot of times we see things that we think violate our rights, but the action has to be performed by the state. You go to a private internet forum and the moderator doesn't like your post and they delete it. Or that someone doesn't like and people start screaming, free speech. There's no free speech in a private forum. The state action doctrine says that your rights are protected against government infringement, not private. Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy? There's two things that make up, according to the court's reasonable expectation of privacy. A government intrusion constitutes a search when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, otherwise it's not a Fourth Amendment. So Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. So reasonable expectation of privacy. There has to be two parts. One is an actual expectation of privacy. And this is something on your part. If you're in this room, do you have an actual expectation of privacy? Probably not. And the second part is, is that expectation reasonable? How many of you think that sitting in this room right now you have an actual expectation of privacy that if you talk, someone might, they shouldn't be able to hear it. Probably nobody. Is there anybody who actually thinks that that would be reasonable? No. So from a reasonable expectation of privacy standpoint, it doesn't exist in here. What about a phone booth? Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a phone booth? Well, it kind of depends. Did you close the door? Most phone booths don't have doors anymore. But this is actually an important case that went before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said that you go into a phone booth and you close the door and you sort of talking softly or whatever. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that the government, if they wanna seize those communications, needs a warrant. What about at a public park? Do you have a reasonable expectation in a public park? No, you're in a public area. What about in your home? Of course you do. These are easy cases. We'll talk about a few borderline cases. What about at the airport? Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? When I went through, I came from BWI and there wasn't a whole bunch of people going through the security line. So they were sending everybody through the naked scanner. Everyone. And I was about to opt out and make a scene, except that the line started getting long and they just waved people through. So what's going on? All those people went through and didn't complain. And this is a theme that I'll get to later, but it may or may not be a violation of your privacy. You can decide that on your own. But if you go through without complaining, you are helping create the expectation, that's not a privacy violation. Imagine if everyone in the world or in the United States refused to go through the scanner. Well then the expectation of privacy. Now that's unrealistic to assume that everyone would do, but imagine just for this example that everyone would refuse to go through them. Well then society's expectation is look, you can't do that. Basically what I'm saying is that we as a society can contribute to changing the expectation of privacy. What about your trash? Well this is interesting. If your trash is in your yard up against the side of your house, it's part of the cartilage of your house and it's considered protected. Once you put that trash can out on the curb, you're saying, please take my trash away and you have no expectation of privacy in your trash once you put it out on the curb. Doesn't matter what's in there. Doesn't matter if you have private documents in there. You have said you've made a declaration that you don't expect that to be private anymore. What about a backpack? Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something that's inside your backpack? Actually you do. Depending upon where you're at, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your backpack because it's in an enclosed backpack. What about a clear backpack? Probably not anymore. I believe there's schools now that they ever wear clear backpacks or something like that. I mean it's kind of ridiculous. We're doing it on time. Good. What about social networks? There's a lot of them. This isn't all of them, but how many of you are joggers or bikers and wear those things that GPS, they track your route? How many, anybody out there? How many post them online? This, I know you can't see this map, but this is a guy who, I think he's a biker, and he labeled like one as home and one as work. And his profile was just viewable. So this guy was saying, and this is one of the many forums where people post these routes, does he have a reasonable expectation of privacy that he works at XYZ company at this address? No, because he's putting it out there. Now we get to the customer loyalty card. There was a man in Tuck Willow Washington in 2005. He was a firefighter and his home caught on fire while his family was inside. And because some firefighters in the past have started fires, he was a suspect. Turns out that according to his Safeway club card, he had purchased the same fire starters that were used to start the fire. So he was arrested. Well, it turns out this guy didn't start the fire. Someone else actually came forward and he was later, although he was arrested and charged, he was later released. How many people realize that everything you buy on these cards are being tracked and that the government doesn't necessarily need a warrant to get this information because you are willingly sharing it with someone else? We'll get back to that. These are general guidelines, not straight about reasonable expectation of privacy. And these are how you can kind of, if you think about it, this is kind of an easy way to look at it. It's the inside outside doctrine. In other words, in your home, inside your home, reasonable expectation of privacy, yes, outside, no. In a container, reasonable expectation of privacy, yes, outside the container, no. Your body, inside, yes, except when you go through the airport. Outside your body, no. What about digital information? Well, typically it's come down this way. Content information, reasonable expectation of privacy, yes. Non-content information, like subscriber, no. What about a social network? What about what you set up private or what you share? Same thing. Now, this doesn't answer all of your questions, but this is sort of a general guideline. Second question, was there a warrant? Was there a warrant? Well, part of that chart that I showed earlier was that there's a whole bunch of exceptions to warrants. Police come to your door and they ask to come inside. You invite them inside and they see something illegal and they arrest you for it. They had no warrant. Did they violate your Fourth Amendment rights? No, because you gave them consent. Plain view, something that's in plain view does not require a warrant. Open fields, sort of the same thing. Curtallage I talked about. Curtallage is the area around your house. Outside of that area, there's no expectation of privacy. Exigent circumstances. Your house is burning down. There's a child screaming and there's a police officer who happens to be walking by. Can he go into your house without a warrant? Of course he can. And if you see something illegal, you can be arrested for it. Doesn't require a warrant. And then I won't even go into the motor vehicle exception because it's very complicated, depending upon where you are and if you have weapons and if you don't have weapons. But generally, because a motor vehicle is mobile, the warrant requirements are a lot less strict. Was the warrant proper and executed correctly? Was there actual probable cause or was it just a hunch? A hunch is not probable cause. Was there a particularity? Warrant actually say what they were searching for. Was it signed by a neutral magistrate? Was it under oath? Was the probable cause stale or out of date? Was the execution timely? Did they actually knock and announce? In most cases, the police cannot kick down your door without announcing that they're there, knocking and announcing. Now, what's reasonable in terms of how long they knock before they kick down your door? That's, again, reasonable. It goes back to what the courts decide. Did they only search areas listed in the warrant? Are they digging into other stuff? Then we have the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a court-derived rule that basically says evidence that is seized improperly has to be excluded. Well, there's exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In other words, good faith. That the police were the police acting in good faith. Inevitable discovery, independent source, and intervening acts. Again, all these things you can look up. These are exceptions. This is why evidence that is seized illegally may still be allowed in court. And then finally, burden of proof. We generally, in our justice system, have four levels of burden of proof. First is reasonable suspicion. This is the lowest burden of proof, and this is above a hunch. This is you have some amount of facts that suspect someone may have been involved in a crime. Then there's probable cause, which is a higher standard. Preponderance of the evidence, which is a burden in civil cases. Preponderance of the evidence is basically a 51%. If we take all the facts, and 51%, say you're guilty and this is how, for example, O.J. Simpson was found liable in the civil case, but not in the criminal case. It was a burden of proof issue. And then beyond a reasonable doubt, which is our burden of proof and criminal trials. Part three, this is the things that should piss you off. Because all these things that I wanna talk about are attacking all the things that I just talked about. They're attacking at the fringes and sometimes at the heart of some of the principles that I talked about. Administrative searches, administrative warrants and subpoenas, public surveillance, schools and student rights, legislatures, judges and technology. And then, yes, it's your fault too. Administrative searches. So what's an administrative search? When you go to the airport and they subject you to a search and they're patting you down, you're thinking, this is ridiculous. I have Fourth Amendment rights. Well, the courts say that a search that is conducted as part of a regulatory scheme is an administrative search and therefore it is by default reasonable. That doesn't sound very, where's this in the Fourth Amendment? I don't see this. The context being that in an administrative search, it's a regulatory scheme. They're trying to prevent terrorism or whatever the threat is. They're not supposed to be searching for individual elements of crime, like things in your bags that are just whatever. That doesn't make any sense, but administrative searches are often a pretext for criminal searches and that's where they become a problem and I'll show you an example of that. What can we do about this? Well, we just have to continue to show that these searches are very intrusive. This is very tough because as well-established, administrative search doctrine is well-established in the law. I'm gonna show you a bunch of headlines and I'll read off the headline and just give you a basic because I know you can't read them. This basically says, this came out a few weeks ago, it said that the naked scans are constitutional because they're administrative searches and the Fourth Amendment analysis in this case before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was actually very short. It was only a few paragraphs. They basically said, we've said before administrative searches are okay and this is okay. So that's it. I'm gonna read this time because you've seen it at the airport. Thank you for your patience, blah, blah. Our transportation security officers also have rights. To protect their safety, threats, verbal abuse or violence will not be tolerated. Please give them respect. Your safety is our priority. Really? So these are showing up in the airports. They're more concerned about their rights and there's no mention of your rights in here. The title of this article is the SWAT team would like to see your alcohol permit and this article isn't about using administrative searches as a pretext for criminal searches and this article is actually about a case in Florida where police were sending shop owners into barber shops in Florida where they suspected that they were dealing drugs and they said they were checking their barber licenses. Well, in the last 10 years, one person's been arrested for falsifying a barber license in Florida but if they happen to find anything on these searches, then they're guilty. Now, do these administrative searches to check these barber shops or do they require warrants? Of course not, they don't. The police just happen to be coming along. This is ridiculous. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is a case in Minnesota. Minnesota tenants challenged housing-noising inspectors where a city was telling their housing inspectors to inspect people's houses but if you happen to see anything illegal, report them back to us. No warrant required. The DC Metro last December started random bag inspections. Can you refuse to have your bag searched? Yes, and then you just go into another entrance to the Metro. They don't actually prevent you from doing that. Security theater at its best. Bunch of people in Savannah, Georgia were getting off, getting off an Amtrak train and one of the TSA, what do they call these teams? Viper teams. 10 minutes, thank you. One of the TSA Viper teams was searching people after they got off the train. Ridiculous. Amtrak chief of police actually said get the fuck out to the TSA. Administrative warrants. I have 10 minutes, I gotta fly. Administrative warrants are warrants that don't necessarily go to a judge. They just go to administrative agency. The best example is the national security letter. Most of you have seen these or heard of them. The FBI just says national security, give us your information. By the way, you can't tell anybody you got this. Flying. There's a researcher named Christopher Segoian. He has a blog called Slight Paranoia. There's a link on the back of my thing. He's doing a lot of great research on privacy about how the government is searching credit card records and credit card transactions. Again, without warrants. Public surveillance. There's cameras all over the place. While everybody was staring at the very cool design on the floor in the registration lobby, those half dozen security cameras were looking at you. The ACLU released a report in Chicago that said there were something like 20,000 surveillance cameras in the city. Ridiculous. Supreme court is gonna decide the next term on the constitutionality of GPS monitoring. Long term GPS monitoring without a warrant. In other words, they slap a GPS tracker on your vehicle and track you for weeks at a time without a warrant. In Maryland, and there's a bunch of, this article's from Maryland, but there's a bunch of agencies around the United States. Now they're using these automated license plate things. They capture your license plate, hundreds of them at a time. And the quote at the bottom here says, police agencies typically keep the information for up to a year before removing it from the system. Well, wait a second. What was your probable cause to even scam a license plate in the first place? Well, okay, maybe I don't have the right to privacy, but are you just gonna keep that information for a year? Are they really gonna delete it? How many people have EC pass or a fast track or one of those different systems? Are you willingly handing over your information to a private agency, which will willingly hand it over to the government and paying for it? There's a couple cases of EC pass where they were handing information over to law enforcement and they were using it to catch speeders. Schools and student rights, students typically don't have the same rights as the rest of us when they're in school. This is not a privacy issue, but this is the Bong Hits for Jesus case where when the Olympic torch was coming past their school, this kid set up a banner that said Bong Hits for Jesus, not in the school, but across the street from the school. And the Supreme Court said, you do not have free speech. Our students' cell phone records discoverable. Kid is not supposed to have their phone in school. It's seized by the principal who decides, well, I'm gonna look through the phone now, finds pictures of naked children and they get charged with child pornography. Oh, this is a great one. In Texas, your kids go through the school line and there's a camera that takes a picture of their lunch tray, counts the calories and then when they bring the tray back, it counts what you ate and then it tracks and sends and keeps track of what their kids are eating. Really? This stuff is going on. There's a Lower Marion, Pennsylvania where the kid took his school-issued laptop home and they were turning on the webcam and recording the kid in his house and the school district basically paid the family off and got off. Legislators and judges, well, unfortunately they don't understand technology very well. So again, we have a legislator in Pennsylvania said he wanted to pass a law that said, you can't take pictures of documents with your phone if those documents contribute to identity theft because that's a really big issue. Internet domain seizures. They just, your domain just gets seized because they think you're involved in piracy or something. The court just came down yesterday and said that seizing a domain is not unreasonable so whatever. Well, I'm sure if you run the website it's pretty fucking unreasonable to you. We had a judge who said, Wi-Fi is not a radio communication. Really? This is a bill, Senate Bill 978 that has to do with copyright infringement that some people have interpreted that if you put something on YouTube that is copyright infringed and more than 10 people view it you can go to jail for five years. Criminal penalty. So I don't know what the answer is. We have a lot of specialty courts in our system so maybe we need special technology courts where the judges and lawyers actually understand technology. It's your fault too because we share a lot of information. All these things, your violence, how many people have total rewards card to stay here? You're just giving your information up. We talked about Safeway, EasyPass, Amazon, Four Square. I mean, I check in. You check in and you share that information. Bing Maps has a Twitter app where you can just, this is the Rio and see all the people who are tweeting from here and what they're saying and then you can start tracking. Dave Marcus who works for McAfee has done a great presentation on tracking people using all the information they share on social media. Going fast. We already talked about third party doctrine at five minutes and this is that information that you share with someone else, you've pretty much lost any expectation and privacy on it. The courts have said that. This is in the Netherlands. Tom Tom sold their GPS information to the police and the police said thank you and they started trapping speeders. Just in case you're not pissed off by all these things, there's a few more that I threw in here. Federal courts said, if you are just arrested, they can take your DNA and store it and say eventually they dropped the charges. They still keep your DNA just from being arrested. How could you possibly oppose a bill called the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011? People know what H.R. of 1981 is. This is the data retention bill. This is the bill that says ISPs have to keep all your information for a year. Well, of course they're protecting against child pornographers. It turns out that the ISPs right now hand over over 100,000 child pornography tips to the federal government every year and the federal government can't keep up. So what are they gonna do with this information? What do you think? TNID.US. So it used to be that like cell phones didn't show up in phone books, not anymore. This information's all out there. You type your phone number in here, you're probably gonna show up. So what happened? There's some other other resolved questions. Is email privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment? One appeals court said it is but that doesn't mean anything. Is warrantless GPS tracking unconstitutional or constitutional? If you're stopped at a traffic stop and they ask to search your cell phone, can they do that? What if your cell phone's locked and you don't wanna unlock it? Some courts and some states have said yes and some courts have said no. Can the government force you to reveal? What if your password isn't, you have, you know, true crypt or something on your laptop and they want, we need you to type in your password. Fuck no. Is privacy dead? Some people have said privacy is dead. I say, well, maybe not yet, but it's dying pretty fast. Remember going back to reasonable expectation of privacy, I said by our actions, we can sort of change what society is believing. So I think that we can start reclaiming privacy. If we start protecting the information and stop sharing so much, you know, the expectation of privacy in society can be, we can change the answers to those questions and we need to increase awareness and we see people's privacy being violated. Even if it's not a violation of the law, we need to point those things out. We need to shift our focus and I'm gonna go through this in about a minute. Do you have a right to wear red hats on Wednesdays? Well, there's no document that says that you can do that. Well, we shouldn't be asking the question that way. We should be asking, the question should not be, do we have the right to do it? The question should be, does the government have the power to prohibit it? And where in the government, where does that power come from? I don't have the time to talk about it, but you know, look at the enumerated powers, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, the 14th Amendment. Are we in a society where we have islands, small islands of liberty and a sea of government power, or are we in an environment where we should have small islands of government power in a sea of liberty where basically it says, unless the government has the power to do it, to prevent you from doing it, you should be able to do whatever you want. If you want to be left alone, you should be able to be left alone. And again, you can make a difference. Judge Alex Kaczynski of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit says, it's our fault, we're sharing so much. If we don't share as much for a little, if we don't give up our privacy for convenience, then maybe we can change the expectation of privacy. Thank you very much.