When I first started asking around about what my friends and family found most interesting about my work, I kind of hoped that as a professor at the College of Journalism and Mass Communications whose research focuses primarily on video games and esports, that those around me might just assume that I play games all the time. That would have made for a better story, but unfortunately, in reality, it does seem like most people had an incomplete but accurate grasp of what I do. This probably means that I talk way too much about my work, something I'm going to need to work on, but talking about work gets very easy to do when it involves things like developing new video games to use as experimental stimuli and research, or teaching a class on the many different ways that video games and game industry influence players and society, or even working with local youth organizations and communities to use video games and competitive esports as a means to engage with teams and build on their interests to teach them valuable creative and organizational skills. Well, you know what they say, do what you love and you'll be grading a ton of essays on Minecraft and Fortress.


What's up guys? Michael Rajaspis with our last recap of the night. This is for 2023 Panini luminance football three box break random team number three That was done auction style and fanatics live.  Yeah, it's break three. Yeah. Yes In an O'Connell year one autograph on card Jackson Smith and jig but year one autograph on card And then a Anthony Richardson year one autograph this one with the red ink on card autograph Nolan Smith auto Ritter Mike Evans to fish on the eight on Connell Yeah Aiden's watching right now. I apologize for that disrespect. He's on potato 50 Had a Kendrick Miller auto Richardson will levice to a hundred Herbert to a hundred onto Smith Jameer Gibbs autograph to 125 Saquon and a Jalen Carter year one red ink autograph for the Eagles So that does it for the recap Thank you to everyone who got into the breaks today. We're really busy had a lot of fun. So thanks guys Everybody will see you tomorrow and have a great night


This is stock number 9353X. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and used heavy-duty truck headquarters. Today, we're checking out this super clean 2015 Chevy Silverado 2500 Crew Cab Short Box. This truck has the 6.6 liter Duramax diesel with the LML motor. From this HD video, you will be able to tell that this truck is extremely clean all the way around. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p, so if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device, turn them on right now, because it's like you're right here looking at the truck with me. Factory alloy rims. It has Nitto Terra Grappler, G2 tires. These are LT28570R17s. You can see the rims are in really nice shape. And these tires have roughly about 70% of the tread left. Frame and underbody. Very clean on this truck. Black is the color. The hood is in excellent shape. I didn't see any dents or dings on that. The only thing I saw was a couple little dings on the front bumper there. Nothing major, but still want to point them out. Passenger side rim is in excellent condition as well. And as you go down this side of the truck, you can see just how clean the body is, how reflective and glass-like that paint is. We take these HD videos, so if you are far away, or even if you're close by and just cannot make the trip down, you can still see the truck, hear the truck, and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here. You can see just how reflective and mirror-like that paint is. You really can't get this from a picture. It has the factory chrome step bars. Back rims are in excellent condition as well. And the back tires have just as much tread as the front tires. You can see the frame and underbody back here is in really nice condition. And it has all the remaining factory exhausts, so it hasn't been altered in any way like that. And lower rockers. No corrosion underneath there. It has a Jason cap. It's in really nice condition. Rear bumpers in excellent condition as well. No dents or dings. Has the in bumper steps, backup sensors, the tailgate is in absolutely perfect condition. As you can see, it has a drop-in bed liner, a gooseneck hitch, and is very clean inside. Locking tailgate. As you go around to this side of the truck, just as clean as the passenger side. See just how mirror-like that paint is. We want to make sure you get the most accurate representation so when that you get here. There's absolutely no surprises and you'll know exactly what you're getting.  There are no rips. There are no tears in the seats. Very nice and clean. Has the factory all-weather floor mats, power windows, power locks, and power mirrors. Has the factory brake controller, turned-out four-wheel drive, and the automatic headlamps. As we look inside the truck here, you can see it has 44,599 miles. You have your Bluetooth audio controls on the steering wheel, cruise controls on that side, and the steering wheel itself is in excellent condition. No scuffs or scrapes. Has the AM, FM, and Serious Satellite radio. Power pedals, stability track, backup sensors, and the factory exhaust brake. Carpeting is very nice and clean. Factory all-weather floor mat on that side, passenger seat is in excellent shape. No rips or tears on that. Side curtain airbags. Up here we have the homelink system for your garage doors, and it does have the on-star capabilities on the mirror. We'll take a quick look at the back seats, and then we'll check out under the hood. Back seats are in really nice condition as well. No rips or tears. It does have the latch-child safety system. And kind of hard to see, but it does have the rear defrost. These seats do fold up for extra storage, and you can see that the carpeting and floor mats are in excellent shape. We'll take a quick look under the hood. Power mirrors with the driver's side blind spot mirror. 6.6 liter Duramax diesel engine base, very clean, runs very smooth. This truck has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop. Has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off. And this truck is 100% ready to go. And to see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 400 new and used cars, trucks, SUVs, minivans, half tons, three quarter tons, one tons, you name it, we got it.  Videos of every single used vehicle that we have. All at summitauto.com. Thanks for checking out the video. If you like this one, want to make it yours. Give us a call right now,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ask for one of our sales associates to make this truck yours today. Once again, that number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Thanks for checking out the video. If you want to check out more, go to youtube.com. www.summitauto.com. Remember to like, subscribe and share on this video and all the videos there. In fact, the second you see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left, a link to more heavy duty truck videos like this one on your right. And if you haven't been to our website on the bottom, a link to this truck on our website, click those, check us out. And we really look forward to helping you with this super clean 2015 Chevy Silverado 2500 Crew Cab Short Box. Thanks again.


Lastly, all of them is very close to its classical location given by the quantile of semi-circular. And with a very explicit error bound. And this is almost as good as you cannot do anything better than that. And there is this explicit error bound. And we can utilize this error bound when you compute this integer. So this is the only page in this proof remaining. The only page that I have here. So what Kozler and Thawless and Jones did was that they did sort of formal computation of the leading term of this integer and then got this limit of fn to the leading order. Of course, at that time, the rigidity is not proven. And so on. So it's not rigorous. But the result should be true. What we did was that we made their analysis rigorous, first of all, and also computed the next order term, giving the fluctuations. So remember that the function that we have to analyze is g is given by this form here. Beta is there. And the lambda k is there. And n is going to be large. So we have to do the critical points. So if the critical points should take a derivative of z, then we get this equation. And this is the stress transform. The stress transform equal to some number. That's what we have to solve. So now you try to plot this graph maybe and then think about it. And there is two different things happening, depending on your beta. When beta is small enough, then you can show that this integral, you can approach it by semicircular law. That is OK to do. And then by solving the equation, your z critical is around this point, which is so when we do this integral, the important thing was that our contour of the integral should be to the right of all of the eigenvalues. So in the limit, those eigenvalues will be in the support of semicircular law from minus 2 and 2. And this critical point is away from that semicircular interval. And therefore, things will go through. On the other hand, when beta is bigger than half, then approximating this by semicircular law doesn't work. That's not a good approximation. Instead, what one can show is that this is something that you want to do, a computation. z is going to be very, very close to all of these eigenvalues. In particular, it will be very close to the largest eigenvalue. And one can get some estimation between z, c is going to be always bigger than lambda 1. But the difference is, one can control that difference. That difference is smaller than the difference between lambda 1 and lambda 2. So that is really, really sticking to the lambda 1. So to your question, when in the critical temperature case, I believe that the difference from z, c to lambda 1 will be of the same or similar order as the distance between lambda and lambda 2. And that will make computation complicated. And then here's some lemma. Then once you have that, then here's some lemma for all beta other than half. This fn, which is log of this integral, you can really be decent. And it can be approximated by g value that does the critical point. And once you have that, then g is here. Now then you don't replace g by its expected mean, but rather keep that and then start plugging the z, c, either this form or that form in here, and start looking at the fluctuations. If I plug this one here, there's a sum of log of linear statistics. On the end, if you plug lambda 1 here, when there are fluctuations from lambda 1 and also fluctuations from the linear statistics, and you have to compare them, and it turns out that the lambda 1 fluctuations is the dominating one. And that's how the proof goes. All right, any questions or comments? cn is just coming from the cn, which is a constant. It doesn't depend on the eigenvalues. So it's just an explicit constant for this one here. So what we are doing here is that we've, suppose you are given lambda case, right? Right, that's right, yeah. OK, so even though this is just transformation, give us something about lambda 1, when you are computing this fn, we don't need this one. We only have to compute g, right? So I'm going to plug this lambda 1 in here. And then, even though I plug in lambda 1 here, here's lambda k. For this c of eigenvalues of lambda k, it is OK to replace it by semicircle, semicircle log. So this one will be replaced by 2 beta lambda 1 and the integral of log of lambda 1 minus x d semicircle log. And then I expand it again in terms of lambda 1. And that's how we get the... So in short, this is g. In principle, it can be complicated if we plug lambda 1 in here. But only the linear... It's only the first order approximation in Taylor series, which means there's a lambda 1. Just not lambda 1 squared or any other, just lambda 1 is the leading contribution. That one has to do some analysis to make sure that that happens, OK? Right, OK? So I'm going to change the subject a tiny bit within here. All right, so so far I talked about SSK. But then in the SSK, there is a SSK plus external field is also interesting subject. So this is a two-spin SSK. But then you may think about adding external field. Here's h times summation of sigma i's. OK, what it does is that if you want to make h is large, if you already see my's are aligned in the same direction, then this number will be big, right? If h is positive number. So this h may interfere with this j. And in this, it does. And the proof, the result of 2015 by Waco Chen and Day and Panchenko. Oh, sorry, there's a end there. Sorry, not Panchenko. Panchenko is not here. OK, Panchenko's friends, maybe. So they consider even p-spin model. They consider more general. But if you have a general p-spin, including two-spin, and for all temperature, they found classical central limit scaling. As long as this h is present. If h is any positive number, just there, then it changes the thing completely, right? So this is dramatic change. So we have to compare that with h equals 0 case, right? So in the low temperature, 4p equals 2nnn, anything, here's n. That's not n-half. And in high temperature, it's n to the 2-thirds or n. But here, this is just central limit theorem. So we can try to do this one in our framework and try to do this integral trick and so on. But then either generate the eigenvector component and one has to do something about it. OK, so I haven't done that. OK, this is something to do in the future. But instead, we thought about the easier problem. It's also a very similar flavor, but analysis is very, very quick. So let me just state that. So it's spin-less plus, instead of external field, something called ferromagnetic Hamiltonian. Instead of summation of sigma i, summation of sigma i, we take summation of sigma i square, right? So that's the change. Instead of summation of sigma i, just square it. If you square it, sum of ij sigma i sigma j, well, then this part and that part look similar. It can combine them together, so j of ij plus m is your new matrix. So this is Hamiltonian is, again, quadratic, but now quadratic part coming from this random matrix plus every entry is shifted by m. So it's a 90-min random matrix. So it's a 90-min Wigner random matrix, also known as rank 1 spiked random matrix, and we chose where to study it. So spiked random matrix, I will just remind you what that does. If you haven't seen it, then it's not a reminder, but OK. Anyhow, so what is known there is that we are going to scale m to make it interesting, m hat over n. Here, n is there so that these vectors has norm 1. That's the natural scaling that one has to adjust. What is known is that if this mean, scaled mean, m hat, is not too large, so in other words, there's random Wigner matrix, mean is tiny bit big, but not too much, then you don't feel it. And if the mean is large, then there's a huge large eigenvalue, as you can expect from the overall translation. So the transition is well known.  Two different things happen. So if it's not too big, then everything just looks like a mean 0 case, then the large eigenvalue will behave like a here, and just same as the usual trace freedom scale. On the other hand, if there is a large mean, pulls out one large eigenvalue outside of the support, like in here, and that one is so free to move, the way it fluctuates is going to be the classical central limit theorem type scaling one of n to the half. So the result of three is that in that setup of two spin SSK plus ferromagnetic case, it's a complete same analysis that's followed through, except that you are looking at not mean 0 Wigner, but sorry, the regular Wigner, we have a non-mean 0 Wigner, and that's the only change. And then taking into account that sometimes these two things can happen, you got the following phase diagram. So here's m hat, the strength of the ferromagnetic part, and this inverse temperature, scale by 2. Then when m hat was 0, that's the first part that I talked about, you had either spin less part and paramagnetic part, which are trace freedom versus Gaussian, n to the minus 2 third fluctuation, versus n to the minus 1 fluctuation, the linear status fluctuation, and this one is lambda 1 fluctuation. On the other hand, when m hat is large enough in this region, and this is the part that the mean of the random matrix starting to dominate, and the one outlier of our line eigenvalue will start to dominate. And there's lambda 1 away from the edge, and then you still have Gaussian, but this region for this Gaussian is completely different from this Gaussian, and the scaling is also different because it's essentially limit theorem type scaling. So this is the result, and then the analysis is similar, except that the change. So here's the final slide, so open question there. So then you can of course think about the transitions in between, in particular when beta equals critical temperature. It's very interesting. Just already using the knowledge of the random matrix that's already existing, one can get the following result easily. So the transition between this part and this part, along this line here, so spin class to ferromagnetic region, then m hat should be scaled as n to the minus 2 third. Upon that scaling, the spiked random matrix theory, the rank 1 fluctuation theory of the random matrix theory applies, and that was very studied before. For example, a complex case here. The real case was studied by Bloemendel and Virak and Moe and Dongwang here. And then that transition, so there is a well-defined transition limiting distributions that will be appearing here. And the fluctuation will be following spin-less fluctuations. But the other parts, this part here, that part here, and also triple scaling region, that's an open question. Between spin and paramagnetic part, by looking at the variance of the fluctuations in here and here, by matching them, exploiting and matching them, it seems like when beta is approaching to half plus root log n times n to the 1 third, seems to be the right scaling. But we don't have any concrete mathematical result in that direction. So thank you for your attention. So are there any questions? OK, I'm not an expert in that direction, so I cannot tell. But there are some predictions. So there are some numerical analysis, but the numerical analysis is very difficult once you have a finite temperature. So I believe there are at least two contradicting predictions. And someone at some point claimed that the critical temperature should follow trace rhythm based on the fact that one cannot think of anything else. But I don't think there is any concrete suggestions about that. Maybe it's no more than me, but n to the fourth third. Oh, yeah, that's right, yes. Yeah, that's right, yes, yeah. Yeah, I forgot to mention that here, Yanfeldrov and Raduzer computed this external field matter. Here, I mentioned that Panchenko computed this one for any h-positive, but Yanfeldrov and Raduzer, they computed it with h scaling with n. And they found interesting scaling of h with respect to n. And then they also studied the transition from h0 version to h-positive version, because there is also a traditional thing that they also computed. And also, of course, I Tony and also, I forgot about the person. Danbo, Danbo and I Tony also picked up their results and then some part of that they made rigorous. So there are all those two directions. Only large divisions. I'm sorry, I'm forgetting, yeah. They did a large division theory about that, yeah. Are there any other questions or remarks? Thank you. And the next speaker is Dumitryu, who will speak again about.


So good afternoon, everybody. We'll get started. For those of you who don't know me, my name is David O'Brien. I'm a senior researcher and the assistant research director for privacy and security at the Berkman Klein Center. And before I introduce our speaker today, I have a few housekeeping notes to share with you. First, we are webcasting this event today. So please be aware that we're both broadcasting live and we're recording it. The video will show up on the Berkman Klein Center's website. And second, for anyone who is watching remotely, hello, and welcome to the room, we will be monitoring tweets. If you have a question or a thought, we'll keep an eye on those. If you tweet at BKC Harvard, we'll make sure to weave it into our Q&A session. And today, it's my pleasure to introduce all of you to Woody Hartzog. Woody is professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University. He's also a faculty associate this year at the Berkman Klein Center. His research focuses on a really interesting area, in particular on the evolving conceptions of privacy, data protection frameworks, the rules around automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics. He's one of the rare breeds of law professor that also holds a PhD in mass communications. And if you study this field, you're actually likely already familiar with a lot of his work. I count him, certainly among the leading scholars. He's written numerous articles, I think, that have been great contributions to the field. You can find those things in places like the Yale, Columbia, California, and Michigan law reviews. And he's also written in The Guardian, and Wired, and BBC, and many other places. Just last week, Woody was down on the hill in DC, testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee on Federal Data Privacy Frameworks. And today, Woody's here to talk about his latest book, which you see here on the screen, Privacy's Blueprint, which was published by the Harvard University Press. I personally can't recommend this book enough. Anytime someone asks me, I'm really interested in this, what should I read, I point them to this. And you all should, if you haven't already, take the time to read it and meditate on it. And well, without further ado, Woody, once you come up here, we'll welcome you up to the stage. Thank you so much, of course. I appreciate it. Thanks, David, and everyone at the Berkman Klein Center for hosting me today. It's really a pleasure to be able to come and talk to you. I make sure I don't have a hot mic here. So I want to start my talk with a series of stories. The first one is a story about a user interface that's asked people if they would give their permission to share their contact information, including information about their network friends to third-party apps that they were downloading or using. And as many of you may know, that data made its way to the firm Cambridge Analytica, which then spilled over and began an international debate, I think, about the ways in which we collect and use information. A second story has to do with this photo, which I found when I was doing research for the book. This is a photo from a hacked Wi-Fi-enabled baby monitor. And the disturbing thing about this photo is not necessarily that this is a hacked photo, but that it was found, I found this through a story on Ars Technica, on a search engine dedicated to archiving photos of hacked baby monitors. And so it's not just one photo. There's a search engine for it if you're interested in it. And then the final story that I wanted to talk about that many of you are likely familiar with is the story of the fight between Apple and the Department of Justice and the FBI regarding whether Apple would make an alternative version of its iOS software on the iPhone that allowed law enforcement to bypass encryption. Now, what do all of these three stories have in common? That is that they are stories about the design of information technologies. And in my talk today, I'd like to make three points. This is the same three points that I try to make in the book. That design matters for privacy more than we law makers, in particular, and policymakers have admitted. The second point is the thesis of the book, which is that privacy laws should take design more seriously. And I'm going to talk a little bit about what that is. And the third one is that a design agent should have roots in consumer protection and surveillance law in contrast to some of the prevailing wisdom about how we should regulate data and information technologies, which looks at things from a data protection perspective. And I'll compare the two and what I think is different about them. All right, so first, design matters for privacy. The reason that I think design matters for privacy is that it is everywhere. It is power and it is political. What do I mean by that? Well, first, design is everywhere. This is one of those things, one of the most interesting things about writing the book for looking for anecdotes for the book and examples to prove the points, is that once you start seeing the ways in which design matters for our privacy, you see it all over the place. And a really good example is this. Does anyone know what this is? Does anyone recognize this? What is this? Snapchat, right? This is technically marketing materials for Snapchat, but it's a mock-up of the user interface for the social medium Snapchat. OK, without knowing what this is or what this does, what do you think that this app is used for? I like to, I've given this talk to a lot of non-academic audiences, and my favorite thing is to get people that have never even heard of Snapchat. What does this do? Close, the seven seconds matters. It allows you to take a photo, and after seven seconds, the photo is supposed to disappear on the other end. It's supposed to be an ephemeral media service. And this is what it was when it first launched. And you can guess that precisely because it's got the scroll wheel. Without any directions, we know exactly how long it's supposed to last. You can send it to other people. And then there's another design element here that's maybe not so subtle. What sort of photos do you think Snapchat is telling you this service could be good for? Sexual ones, right? Snapchat, when it first came out at least, was known as the sexting app. And perhaps it's no secret why. We've got some very carefully cropped photos here that you can't tell whether these women are wearing clothes or not. And the invitation, the cumulative effect of the design is you can share this on our site because it's safe, because it won't last forever. It's temporary. See all the signs there? Temporary. So you can be a little more risque on this site than you could with other sites. And all of this is conveyed with pure design, without any sort of explicit instruction. Design decisions are all over the place. What is this? Everyone probably knows what this is. Google Glass, right? Google Glass, one of the more infamous wearable technologies. People might could have handled, I think, a screen over their eyes. But there was one design decision that may have put, may have doomed Google Glass' project. What was it? Oh, the vibration there. I didn't even think about that one. Actually, I was thinking about the camera, right? You don't know when it's on. You don't know when it's on? Although technically, there was an interesting design feature there. The light was supposed to, there was a red light that was supposed to come on whenever it was active. But that didn't seem to comfort people too much, right? Because there was a camera. Now, the question about whether there was a camera ostensibly might seem silly. Because of course, every single one of us already has a camera on us at all times. There's actually another design decision that makes the camera different. And that's the fact that it goes around your ears. And then you can wear it at all times. It reduces the cost of accessing the camera from having, now it seems trivial, having to reach in, pull out, open the thing, take the photo. Google Glass used design to reduce the cost of taking photos. And that made people intensely uncomfortable. Right, and surreptitious, right. The idea. Right, exactly. It's something, not just a cost, but it was more visible as well. People might not notice the red light if it was supposed to be on. And so there were websites dedicated to glass holes as they were called. And it was met with a lot of feedback because of the design decision. And then many of you may recognize this icon. Do you want to hear, know what this is? Well, it certainly indicates something nefarious, doesn't it? Or possibly, or at least some kind of subterfuge. What is this? Private browsing. This is incognito mode for the Google Chrome browser. And whenever you open up incognito mode, you see this, I don't know, shady character, someone who doesn't want to be detected, right? Someone who has got the hat pulled down low and the collar pulled up. And the idea is, if you don't want to be seen or recognized, you are now in a context where that's possible. Now, without saying anything else, you might think that you are overprotected. Because of course, that's not how Google Chrome works, right? Just because you're using incognito mode doesn't necessarily mean that no one can see anything that you're doing. Website that you're interacting with can see what you're doing. Your ISP can still see what you're doing. Incognito mode just removes its traces of what you've been doing on your own computer. And to Google's credit, they actually have a series of disclaimers about what incognito mode does right below this icon. But if those weren't there, you might think, ooh, now I'm in private surfing mode, right? No one can see what I do online, all because of design. So design is everywhere. Design is also power, meaning that it does several different things. It makes things easier or harder. It affects the transaction cost. And it gives off signals. It tells us something about the nature of how the technology works or about the relationship that we're getting into with the tech user. One of my favorite research projects that I looked at for this book was actually one that was conducted by Harvard's own Leslie John and Alessandro O'Quisty and George Lowenstein at Carnegie Mellon. And they brought research subjects in. And they had them answer a series of questions. And the questions were relatively sensitive. So if you can see this, it says, have you ever smoked marijuana? Have you ever cheated while in a relationship? Have you ever driven when you were pretty sure you were over the legal blood alcohol level? And this is just a taste of the kind of questions that they were asked. Basically, have you ever committed a crime? And what's the first thing that you notice when you sit down and look at this interface? Comic sans font. No one has ever taken anything seriously in the history that is written in comic sans font. What else? Yeah, the devil icon and the you, right? It's funny, right?  And it says, how bad are you with the multiple exclamation points? And the idea is, it's like cutesy, right? Yeah, binary answers here. Yes or no, right? There's no sort of in between. There's no skip option here. Forced choices. But the overall sort of effect of this here is they want to say, how bad are you, right? But what they're really saying is, you're bad. You're just a little bad, right? Everyone's just a little bad. You can admit it here. Now, here's the control group. Gone is the comic sans, right? Replaced with a respectable sans-serif font. Gone is the how bad are you, replaced with a respectable imprimatur of Carnegie Mellon University. And this research project really illustrated to me, and I want to quote it exactly, because I don't want to misstate their conclusions. But they call this the non-frivolous interface and this the frivolous interface. And the scholar said that relative to the non-frivolous interface, participants in the frivolous looking survey, which is this, that asked identical questions were, on average, 1.7 times more likely to admit to having engaged in risky behaviors. For example, the scholar said, a participant in the frivolous looking survey was, on average, 2.03 times more likely to admit having ever taken nude pictures of himself or a partner. And they concluded that people at scenes feel more comfortable providing personal information on unprofessional sites that, arguably, particularly, are more likely to misuse it. Every single design decision makes a certain reality more or less likely. It is power distributed. Finally, it brings me to my last point. Design is political. It's always political. When I first started giving this talk, I got some pushback from some people that said, why are you obsessed with the design of information technologies? Why wouldn't you just regulate misuses of that technology? And we see this carrying out in debates now. So people say, you wouldn't regulate a knife. You regulate stabbing people. Knives can cut vegetables. They can be used for very useful things. But they can also be used for bad things. And so we should regulate those uses, not the technologies themselves. And it sort of often gets distilled down to this sort of maxim, which is, there are no bad technologies, only bad users. I don't think that's true. I think that because every single design decision makes a certain reality more or less likely, that means that every technology that is designed to have some sort of effect on the world is inherently political, maybe just a little bit. But even ignoring the certain realities that technologies are likely to lead to is a decision in and of itself. And so what it means, I think, in the way that this sort of plays out, is that lawmakers should not ignore the design of information technologies.  And maybe those choices are good or not, but let's not do so under the pretense of neutrality. OK. The second part of the book that I try to get into is that privacy law should take design more seriously. And the reason why is because if you look at privacy law, there's actually a design gap there. There are several holes that I think ignoring the role of design has left in our jurisprudence. Now I teach information privacy law. And it turns out that even though it's infinitely complex, a lot of data privacy law can be distilled down to three rules, just three. And so now it summarizes. So you never have to take information privacy law. The first one is basically follow the FIPS. Follow what is known as the fair information practices. The fair information practices are the building blocks of modern data protection law. They are things like access, notice, choice, data minimization, procedural safeguards, things that we all recognize. They are the fundamental building blocks of statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and most notably the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe. The FIPS have become amazingly for a concept to sort of broad and diverse as privacy, almost an international language of privacy, which is amazing. And so the FIPS are what we tend to embrace. But the problem with the FIPS is that it almost always distills down into this notion that we should give people, people as data subjects, control over their personal information. This is a compelling concept. It drives a lot of our national conversation about what our data protection law should be. The problem with control, and this is one of the major points of the book and something that I feel really strongly about, is that control isn't workable as a solution, as a regulatory strategy for privacy. And here's why. The way that control gets instantiated is through this thing. Everyone recognizes this. It's a toggle switch. Can this app collect your geolocation information? Green means yes, gray means no. You click one button, boot, done and done. Fair enough, simple enough, except it's never just one. So we say, OK, I've got a few decisions to make here. Compass calibration, that seems good. I think I want that. Find my iPad. That's useful. It helps me find my iPad when I've lost it. I can remotely brick it. That's good. Location-based alerts, I don't know what that is, but maybe it's good. Location-based I ads, I don't know how that's different than location-based alerts, but maybe that's good. Setting time zone, share my location with who. So we've got a series of decisions that we have to go through here. But maybe let's say we take the time, we make the decisions, we go through, we pour a second cup of coffee, we work through, we say, OK, I think I'm set. Oh, god. Now I've got lots of decisions to make. The problem with thinking about privacy as control is that it simply doesn't scale. We don't have the resources, because we have to keep fiddling with these switches forever and ever every day for the rest of our life. If we conceptualize privacy as control, then we are gifted with so much of it that we choke on it. And the way that that happens is through design. The second rule of privacy is do not lie. This is how the US first entered regulating privacy in the 1990s through the Federal Trade Commission's authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices, where they said, listen, we don't want to regulate it too much because it's a brand new technology, the internet's a little baby, we don't want to crush it. So what we're going to say is, do whatever you want, but if you promise something, just make sure that you do it. Fair enough. The problem with the do not lie ethos though is that technical truths can get embedded all sorts of places and mean nothing. If you wanted to hide the location of a dead body somewhere, where's the first place you would put it where you know no one would read it? In the terms and conditions, you'd put it in the privacy policy because it would be guaranteed to remain unread. So technical truths, the do not lie rule, doesn't help us when technical truths are embedded in places where we know they're never going to get read through design. Or what happens is that we oversimplify. We use design to have a pop-up that says, by the way, here's a thing, but there's only so much information you can convey in a little pop-up ad. How many people, when you are in Europe and you go to a website and the I Agree banner pops up and this website uses cookies, you're like, yes, yes, yes, fine, whatever. Click and you agree. Technical truth, worthless or privacy. The final area in which privacy's design gap manifests itself is in the rule of do not harm. This is sort of the final rule. And it's manifested in the Federal Trade Commission's requirement to police unfair trade practices. And the do not harm mentality says, well, as long as you don't physically or emotionally or financially hurt someone, then you're fine. But the problem with modern privacy harms is that they don't always manifest themselves in clearly tangible harms. Rather, it's sort of death by 1,000 cuts, a little information here, a little information there. And each discrete disclosure isn't enough necessarily to rise to the level of what the law would recognize as a tangible harm. And so when data breaches happen, for example, information gets slowly compromised bit by bit. But it's difficult to say any of those rise to one particular level of harm unless you have your bank account compromised or something like that. And so the design gap manifests there. Okay, so what do we do about it? This is the next part of the book where I propose a theory, a design agenda for lawmakers and the way in which I manifest this is three parts. One is we have to identify values. What are the values that we want designed to further? Two, what are the boundaries that we want designed to not cross? And then what are the tools we can use to effectuate that? In terms of values, I say your mileage could vary. There are multiple values that you might wanna see represented in design. For my part, I chose three of, I think the most important values for at least privacy and it's actually not control. It's trust, obscurity, and autonomy. Trust, I think, is one of the key components of modern privacy law, it's something that we've forgotten about, which is that when we disclose information to people, we often do so within relationships of trust. There are promises that are made, expectations that people have about discretion, whether you're going to reveal certain kinds of information, about honesty, what sort of things do I need to know? Not what's buried in the fine print, but that you should tell me even if you don't want me to know. Protection, are you going to store my passwords in clear text, please know? And finally, and what I think is one of the most important values or concepts that's been missing in privacy law this far is the concept of loyalty, which is not putting the data processor's own needs in front of the interests or needs of the data subject or at least not unreasonably so. This is in harmony with Jack Balkan and Jonathan Zitrain's concept of information fiduciaries, where we can talk about that a little later, and I argue that these values should be reflected in the design of information technologies. Another value that I think is less established in privacy law but equally important is the concept of obscurity, the idea that if information or people are unlikely to be found or understood, they are to a relative degree safe. And we live our lives surrounded in zones of obscurity. When all of you walked here today, you walked down the street probably thinking that that walk wasn't going to be broadcast on the Times Square jumbotron, right? And we use our risk calculus to adjust ourselves all the time and the problem is that surveillance technologies, what I call seeking technologies can eviscerate that obscurity, right? There are biometrics and other sorts of surveillance technologies that can significantly alter the risk calculus that we use every day to adjust whether it's safe to pick our nose or gossip in the hallway or do random things that we're pretty sure that most people are never going to see. And then finally, the value that we should seek to further is autonomy. And I draw a distinction between autonomy and control. Sometimes people use those two terms synonymously, but I don't think they're the same thing. Control could serve autonomy. But as I've tried to demonstrate earlier, if you're given too much control through design, it actually is corrosive to autonomy because it inhibits our ability to make a decision and it actually works as an interference because our acquiescence can be, our silence can be taken as acquiescence. Okay, so at the end of the book, I make the argument that the design agenda should have roots in consumer protection and surveillance law. And I say that there are, if you look at what we've already created, not within data protection law, but within consumer protection and surveillance law, we can pull from a couple of standards already, deceptive design, abusive design, and dangerous design, which are potential boundaries that we can draw from. If we create an app that says add friends, the idea is that it's not going to go through your address book and automatically upload the entire address book and send invitations out to everyone. Rather, we think it's going, this is the path case that the Federal Trade Commission brought, a complaint against the social media path. We should avoid interfaces that are unduly malicious or abusive or manipulative. And what I mean by that is one of the things that has been interesting and fun to try to collect is all the examples of what designer Harry Brignale calls dark patterns, which are user interfaces designed to make people do things that they might not want to do or to channel them in a certain kinds of behavior. And this is one that's sort of, I think called confirm shaming, right, which is here at the bottom. It says, no thanks. I'd rather pay full price for delicious tea. If you want a decline, click off the op-ed. If you see here, you have shaming. What if your neighbors knew whether you voted or not, right? So people's personal information is leveraged against them in sort of abusive ways. You know, here it says stop losing customers and then it finds, it says, no thanks. I'm fine with losing customers. There was one that I found that was, it was for a health app. And to decline it, you had to click no thanks. I'd prefer to bleed out or something like that. It was really, and of course we laugh it off, but like over time that sort of like weedling and chipping away at our resolve can have an effect in the aggregate. The use of things like double and triple negatives. Like I don't not disagree to this thing. It's not deceptive, but it is abusive, right? And then it leverages our own cognitive and resource limitations against us. And then finally, there are certain things that are outright dangerous. Spy cams I think could be outright dangerous. This is designed, this is a camera. This is designed for one thing only, right? It is to surveil you in a way that you don't know that you're being watched. In the book I talk about there's a toothbrush that has a camera in it, it's a spy cam. That's designed for one thing, bathroom voyeurism. And that to me might be too dangerous. And so what are the responses that we can have here? Well, we can have a soft response. We can have a moderate response or a robust response. The soft response involves funding. It involves education efforts. It involves trying to work with academics and industry to create standards around the design of information technologies. And we see certain efforts underway to do that right now. There could be moderate efforts. Moderate efforts might involve simply taking, being more aware of design in the frameworks that we currently have. And so in the book I talk a lot about how promises are being made through design all the time. Yet judges, when interpreting what the agreement is between users and websites, very rarely look to the design. They almost exclusively look to the terms of use. Even though things like padlock icons are basically design-based promises for some kind of protection, right? They say, well, this will protect you some way. And we need to be a little more critical about what is design trying to tell us? And then finally, and we can talk about this in the Q&A a little, some of the robust responses could include financial punishment for creating certain kinds of technologies or perhaps outright bans. We ban spyware. We ban the trafficking in spyware. We might wanna consider that model a little more. One of the things that I've been vocal about is facial recognition technology, which I view as probably the most dangerous surveillance technology ever created. And I think that it's so dangerous that we need to move me on simply trying to get consent for uses of facial recognition. Start thinking a little bit more about robust responses and what that might look like, including possible moratoriums or outright bans. And then the final part of the book, I take the blueprint that I proposed and I show how it might work within the context of social media, how it might work within hide and seek technologies and how it might work in the, what I call the flaming dumpster fire of the internet of things. So, and so that's it. I'll wrap up now and I'm happy to move to Q&A. Excellent, thank you Woody. All right, so that was really a terrific presentation. Thank you so much. Now we'll go over to Q&A and actually we have ample time for that. So start to think about your questions. I had a couple that I wanted to get us going with and I'm gonna put on my libertarian hat as best I can here and it seems a little bit like what you're saying is we need to be a little bit more maternalistic or paternalistic when it comes to design choices from the top down more or less. But you also mentioned autonomy and control are still important factors here. I mean, where does consent fit into this? We know how it fails, right? We know that people don't read things like Terms of Service. But what is it, where could there still be places for consent or how do you think about that? And then the other thing I'd like you to address if you might is manipulation. That's a wonderful topic. It's incredibly broad and very subjective perhaps in my view. How do we think about that too? Okay, that's a great question. Thank you. So in terms of consent, I somewhere along the way in the 1970s when data protection frameworks were first being conceived and we first started to realize that data being aggregated posed potential issues. We started thinking about what the framework should be for regulating data and one of the frameworks that came out was this concept of informed consent. That people should have a choice as to whether their data is used or not. And it seemed like a really good thing because who doesn't want more control and more choice? And it works at least somewhat well in other areas like with informed consent as a cause of action for surgery. So anyone here that's had a medical procedure done recently, someone came to you, they sat down, they said, listen, this could be pretty risky. Are you sure you want to do this? Here are the alternatives. And then you sign off and you say, I give informed consent. I teach torts, we use consent as a defense to battery. Consent, it's not as though we just sort of drew it out of thin air, drew this concept out of thin air. Here's the problem though. We didn't think it through well enough because consent only works within a limited context, right, within a limited environment. And if you think about areas in which informed consent theoretically works, it's got three common things that make it at least a possibly workable concept. One of those is that informed consent is asked infrequently. So when we give consent for surgery, we don't have to make that decision very often, right? So we actually have time to think about it and say, okay, this is a big deal, I should consider this. The exact opposite is true for data environments where we are given a relentless onslaught of I agree options, right? And we press that button over and over and over multiple times a day. And so it doesn't work there. Another area sort of precondition for what I call gold standard consent and work that I've done with Neil Richards is the idea that the harms that we envision are visceral or easy to imagine. So when you give consent for surgery, you can imagine someone having a scalpel and sneezing and slipping and cutting, right? That's a very visceral thing that I can actually envision in my head. I'm like, that's scary. When you consent to contact on the football field, you can imagine what might happen if it goes wrong. You get hit very hard, right?  The exact opposite is true in the data environment where once our information is disclosed, the flows in which it travels is largely invisible to us. And so it becomes very difficult for us to do any meaningful risk calculus consistently. It's basically guessing, right? It's just wild guessing. And then the final precondition for gold standard consent, I think is that the harms are, the discrete harms, so what I mean by discrete is each individual decision point has a consequence that is significant. So if I make the wrong decision about surgery, I could die. If I make the wrong decision about football, I could, getting hit on the football field, I could get seriously injured. There are all these reasons why I might want to take this particular decision seriously. None of that exists in the data environment because each time we're asked, we're usually just giving just a little bit of information, right? Every time, just a little bit. Maybe my geolocation just this one time, right? Maybe my name and address just this one time, right? And we have difficulty having the right incentives to take each I agree button seriously. And what we do is we fail to do it every time, right? We collectively gloss over it and then you look up and you've glossed over it 400 times, right? And so consent, I'm not convinced. Now the pushback to this and the pushback that I've gotten is, do you think people are idiots, right? You have no faith in humanity, that we don't have the capacity to decide for ourselves what we want to do. And my response to that would be it's not that I don't have faith in humanity, it's that so much is being asked of us, it's unrealistic. And so we chose a regulatory strategy that just doesn't work at scale. If the preconditions for effective consent were there, it might be different and there might be a place for it, but it requires a really difficult conversation that we haven't had yet. And that difficult conversation is do we start prioritizing requests? So we could have a place for consent, but not everybody gets to ask it because right now our requests for consent are weighted equally, right? So Google gets to ask for consent, the some random app gets to ask for consent and they're all weighted equally. And the kinds of requests, can I have all your information, can I have just your geolocation information, can I just have your name and address? All those requests are also weighted equally. And if we want to prioritize what I think is a finite resource, then we're gonna have to start categorizing. It's gonna have to be like bankruptcy where everybody gets in line, right? And we have a pecking order for consent and we haven't yet had that conversation and it's a hard one, right? I mean who's to say that geolocation is the most important thing to ask for? Who's to say that the company that I spend most, the app that I spend most of my time with gets priority on consent, right? I mean how do we even begin to construct that? But it's a place we need to be. And in terms of manipulation, so I talk a lot about wrongful manipulative design or abusive design in the book, that's hard. And it's something that we've been struggling with for a while in the advertising context because manipulation by a less pejorative term is trying to get people to do the thing that you want them to do, which is advertising. And that can be actually a good thing, right? And it can inform people and give them lots of options. And so the best example, the best examples that I've seen so far, one of them has to do with a design, if you look at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a three-pronged consumer protection mandate, unfair, deceptive, and abusive trade practices. And abusive trade practices are those that leverage people's own limitations against them. And there are things where we might be able to start identifying the constellation of abusive practices in a way that when negligence law was first a thing, who knew what it was, but now we sort of like, have sort of zeroed in on it. And it could be things like the use of triple negatives, right, or double negatives, the use of negative option marketing, right? Where you say, you stay enrolled unless you don't opt out, or the use of false choices, right? Like these sort of false binaries. Like there are these patterns that consistently I think we've learned to identify, but that's gonna take a lot more conversation, I think. Questions, we have mics running around here. When one reaches you, please state your name and a question. Hello, my name is Emiliano. I want to know if you think that substantive provisions that can be used to regulate design, I was thinking on the California Privacy Act that it has the equal services provision. And I think most of the designs that you showed in the end will be legal because if you make a choice of information, you cannot be given different services. So do you think this is a good way of regulating design? What do you think about that? Yeah, so I'm of two minds about these sort of substantive rules. And one of the big fights that we're having, I think now in data security is whether we're going to have clear rules. And I think industry, generally speaking, can respond to a lot as long as the rules are clear, which is something they've advocated for. But there's also a virtue, I think, in having a reasonableness approach, which has a lot more flexibility, because my fear about having very specific substantive rules is we ossify things relatively quickly, particularly with the design of information technologies where it can change a little. And so unless we do so within a structure that has things like sunset provisions and mandatory sort of re-uppings, I think we risk creating, if we have very specific rules, substantive specific rules, which generally I'm in favor of, I think we risk sort of ossifying and then the more specific we get, the more we sort of allow through omission. Whereas if we create responsibilities to avoid an abusive design, for example, unreasonably dangerous design, then we're, I think, relieving a little of what we ask of users and we are putting more risk on companies, but companies are the ones that, A, are designing the technologies and B, I think, are able to make changes to that.  How do you decide what's reasonable and what's unreasonable? Such a good question, thank you. The short answer is you can bring, there are a number of collective strategies to decide what's reasonable and unreasonable. One of them is, so in tort law, sort of negligence is acting unreasonably under the circumstances, to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others, that's the whole torts. What is it? It depends on context. So the short and easy answer is you have to look at the context and the way in which we inform that is we look at things like custom, industry standard, we look at perhaps international standards, we can look at things like reasonable alternative design. This is one of the ways in which we decide whether products are going to be under products liability law, whether something is a defective design, unreasonably defective design. The reasonableness test, generally speaking, is broad and undefined, but it's not something that I think law is unfamiliar with. It would require, I think, a lot more serious conversation, but I think we could get there through time, and then iteratively. Wait for the mic, please, so the folks could hear. You disadvantage in new industries that do not have any kind of customer standards. Yes. And therefore, you're kind of slowing down the progress, in a sense. I don't see much of a difference between that and Walmart to be allowed to sell in India, and then India changes their law once it's become popular, is that you can only sell things that are produced within the country. And we're certainly not a third world country to not oblige to some grandfather clauses. Well, so the question of data localization, I think, is an interesting one, but I would distinguish this from that. And would I be imposing a cost on companies? Absolutely. I mean, I think that we need to be clear here that when we're talking about design rules, we're talking about rules that limit what industry will be able to create. My point is that maybe that's the cost of admission given how dangerous these information technologies are. And that if we can't do it safely, then maybe we shouldn't do it at all.  I'm wondering what you think in terms of these concepts being applied to both children and families in terms of the issues and then the appropriate response. So I agree. I, generally speaking, one of the reasons that I am so critical of consent structures is because we often, even in COPPA, which I think is a well-meaning law and in many ways has been at least effective from its ability to bring claims and get some sort of consequences from it. But we're asking, A, I think, that it's important to consider children specifically. So I would agree with the idea that it's worth differentiating people, not just children, but lots of different populations that suffer the effects of design differently. So people of color, women in certain instances, there are lots of people for whom design affects differently within privacy. And I think it's worth having a legal system that is sensitive to that. And I think that when we're talking about children, one of the things that has motivated me in this entire field is the idea that the way in which we grow up is through certain sorts of zones of privacy so that we can have room to play in experiments and fail in a way in which people develop. And so I would push back, I would support sort of getting rid of this idea of consent because also, at least in contract doctrine, the idea of having consent regimes based on children is, A, they don't have enough practice making those sorts of decisions. B, they probably haven't had enough time to accumulate the wisdom that would help them sort of calibrate the right decisions. And so to the extent that I'm critical of consent, I'm particularly critical of consent with the space of children and then actually would encourage and maybe even be able to justify design protections for children even more than sort of the general populace. Oh, I'm sorry, the mic's back here. Hi, thank you for the presentation. And name first, if you might. My name is Aran, I'm an LLM student here. So I think consent is closely related to choice and how much choice do users have when the tech companies with the services they provide, they're increasingly becoming monopolies and maybe the GDPR is disappointing in that sense because it's being criticized for having a disproportionate effect on small companies and it doesn't really matter to the large sync companies and they're also monopolies. So what would you advise to perhaps other jurisdictions who are working on comprehensive data protection law to avoid this from happening? So I gather that in terms of the net effect on competition of data protection frameworks like the GDPR, one of the things that was built in to try to increase consumer choice and generally speaking, I should say that even though I'm highly critical of consent regimes, I'm very much in for data subject rights. So rights of access, rights of deletion, rights of, and the area in which I think is meant to be pro-competitive is data portability, the idea that you can just sort of like wholesale download. Now that's an insanely complicated thing but it's to the extent that we could encourage that, I think that we should encourage data subject rights as a way to empower people. I do like the, I'm supportive of choice in that sense in terms of a range of options to choose from. The problem is when we ask for people's choice to transfer rights away, that's where it becomes really problematic. So people should be protected I think regardless of what they consent to or choose. In other words, I just want a higher floor than what we seem to have right now. So I'd focus on data subject rights and also maybe getting serious about anti-competition law if we want to, but that's a different conversation and I'm not a competition law scholar. Hi, Michael Rand from New York City and Columbia University. And my question is, I know here in Cambridge there's a firm called IDEO and of course there are a lot of other places too. And I was curious if you had gone to or had any interaction with any of the design people, studios, et cetera in thinking about solutions to this and identifying the problems, et cetera, et cetera since design and theory is there bread and butter. So I have given this particular talk at multiple technology companies and I've had the privilege of meeting with a lot of their designers and engineers afterwards. And it's A, always immediately a humbling experience because then the complexity of the problem is always presented very starkly. But it is something that I thought about and I hope to continue to think about. One of the things in which I would love to see and generally supportive of is these sort of dashboards that are being created now for people to be able to take stock in a non sort of synchronous flashpoint way of get deletion rights and then making sure that it does what people think they should do. Hi, my name is Alicia. I noticed that we've talked a lot about design in terms of user facing design. So I was wondering about the relationship between design and the sense of software engineering choices at lower levels and relationship to privacy. Yes, so a lot of my design, a lot of the focus on the book is on the UX UI and less about design at several layers down in the stack. I think that that's equally relevant and probably is a bigger component of this. So when I talk about privacy by design or privacy and design, I actually mean all of it. But in terms of what I focus the most of my energy on for the book, it was the user facing stuff, that's where I see the biggest gap because I think that there are a lot of other scholars that are doing some really great work on ways to engineer design solutions and do other parts of the system. So segmentation, de-identification solutions, I think are really interesting. Back-end encryption solutions. I think this is, and a lot of this also overlaps with data security law, generally speaking, which is my next project. So that's a long-winded way of me saying, I think this is relevant, but I haven't thought about it as much specifically for this book. Time for maybe three more questions if we go quickly. In the, oh, sorry. Andy Summer, I'm an ALI fellow. Can you talk a little bit about the enforcement mechanism that you envision for this regime? Do you think there are existing agencies that would be responsible enforcement? Would you give a private right of action? Yes, I would. So my short approach to enforcements of design as I've been, the design agenda that I propose in the book is sort of letting 1,000 flowers bloom. I like the overlapping jurisdiction between the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, which is why I suggest the consumer protection approach. While I think that establishing a US data protection authority could be beneficial in some ways, I view it as relatively limiting in other ways because privacy in my mind is about more than just personal data and the harms that come with the aggregation of personal data. I would like to see civil rights law sort of brought into this conversation a little bit more. Other values that are identified in the design, I think could bring to bear their accessibility concerns that I think we would want to bring into it. And so the Federal Trade Commission is the agency that identifies most easily able to implement immediately sort of some of the suggestions in the book. They would require an additional grant of authority under some circumstances. And then judges were actually a part of the audience of my book, which is that they oversee a lot of disputes. And if we had a private cause of action, they would oversee more, which I would encourage. And to be more cognizant of the role that design plays in shaping people's expectations, I think would be an important step forward. In the case, I don't know if you want to put the slide back up of the user interface that presented you with the choice of getting 10% off or not, depending on whether you gave them your data, do you believe that that was just a misleading interface or do you think that's an abusive choice that should never be presented to a user in the first place? Yeah, so I think that probably would fall on the, if we addressed it, we would address it through the soft response, right? So I think it's an issue of the idea that in the aggregate, that sort of thing can wear us down. That particular one in isolation might not be necessarily violative, but the use of things like double negatives might absolutely. I was just wondering whether you felt that the practice of giving a discount in exchange for giving up your data is itself an abusive practice. Is that what you were aiming at? Oh, oh. Or is it just the user interface of making that choice that you were aiming at? So I have to say, I don't love that practice. And the reason why is I don't love the practice. I don't like the idea of the more you sort of disclose the more we can take without having a sort of trustworthy relationship rules imposed. Now, if we did it within the context of a trustworthy relationship, I might be okay with it because then we've got loyalty, protection, honesty, discretion, but I don't like, and this brings into a larger debate about should we sell our data, right? So will I am, and I think someone in California saying we should be paid for our data. I think that's a really dangerous frame, frankly, and would push back against it because when you take something that is as broad as privacy that incorporates human flourishing, civil rights, well-being, so many other things and we distill it down to a market transaction that sort of implies you can now do what you will with this data, I don't think we're gonna like what people get on the end of that. And I also don't want privacy to be something that only those, I mean, the sort of flip side of that is people that can afford it don't have to take the discounts. And I don't want privacy to be a luxury good. Maybe one last question from me. So we know right now you were just on the hill last week and right now Congress is of course debating the future of our privacy laws in this country. If you could make a prediction right now about what things look like a few years from now, is there no change? Is there a little bit of change? Do we see a lot of change? And how long do you think it would take to implement a shift in the direction that you suggest in your book? So that's a really great question. I think the answer to that question depends upon what happens in the states because this thing could break two different ways, I think. One is that Washington, so there are a couple of bills now floating around the states because the number one question here you should all know I think it's preemption. So it was the thing that kicked off the hearing is apparently the only thing that seems to matter right now. And so what that means is we have to watch very carefully what the states are doing. If it breaks like the data protection laws broke. So California introduces the first data protection law in 2003, all the other states look around and say that's a great idea. And they start passing their own data breach protection laws but they're all more or less the same, right? I mean there are important differences and I don't wanna over generalize but we've been living with the 50 state framework of 50 different data breach laws for a few years now and the economy is not crumbled apart because of that. If privacy law breaks the same way, you're not going to get as big of a push for federal legislation. And we might actually end up with something like a 50, continue our 50 state framework of privacy with a little more legislation. If it's, if a couple of states go out on a ledge and create wide variants from like the California Privacy Protection Act for example or something that even worse would be incompatible, in other words a company literally could not dual comply with multiple state laws. I said, you know, go into the ceiling. Then you're gonna see, because I think there's an appetite for regulation now in the wake of Cambridge Analytica in a way that I haven't seen it before. And if you had asked me this question two years ago I would have said you won't see federal legislation for 20 years. Now I think it's really dependent upon what the states do. Massachusetts just introduced a bill, so. And how long would it take? My agenda is severable. So you could break it off into lots of different parts. There are things we could do, you know, flip the switch now and the Federal Trade Commission judges and state attorneys general could easily implement. You could pass a small, you know, upgrade bill to the Federal Trade Commission to do a lot of what I'm requesting in the bill. And then some of the stuff that I'm introducing like outright bans or moratoriums, San Francisco just introduced a moratorium, I mean an outright ban on facial recognition technology. I don't know whether it'll pass. There's a more moratoriums have been proposed on facial recognition in Washington State and in Massachusetts. And so there are bits of it that are sort of percolating even now. And so actually I'm optimistic actually. Could you say more about why you mentioned earlier that you think that facial recognition is the most dangerous kind of surveillance? Sure, absolutely. So even among biometrics, I think it's the most dangerous technology ever invented. And the reason why, there are three reasons why. One is that there is a legacy of name-face databases that exists that doesn't exist for other biometrics, right? So facial recognition is almost like plug and play because Facebook is the largest name-face database in the world, I would assume. And so because biometric surveillance typically relies upon both the database and the implementation, one of them's already been fulfilled there, whereas with things like Iris recognition, gate recognition, those databases have to be created. So there's already, so facial recognition is already ahead. Number two, it's a lot harder to hide your face, right? So if you wanted to engage in surveillance countermeasures, there are ways to do that for other biometrics, this is really hard. And in fact, there are laws that sometimes prohibit hiding your face. And so, and then the third reason is that of all the things, of all the physical traits that are central to a person, external physical traits that are central to a person's identity, it is your face, right? So if you all, a week from now, someone mentions, hey, I saw a talk by Woody Hartzog and you sort of conjure that up, you probably will think of my face, right? Not my hands, not my gate, right?  And so it's something I think on a conceptual level that's worth protecting even more. And so that's why I think it's so uniquely dangerous. It particularly be given the incentive for creep here. So facial recognition technology has, thus far what I've seen has lots of, there are three sorts of benefits. The benefits we don't know about yet, the benefits that are stated, which are great and difficult to deny.  The modest benefits are stuff like being able to unlock your phone with your face rather than a thumbprint, right? It's a modest improvement, right? Or maybe being able to have your face recognized in a series of photos so that you can organize all your photos according to people's faces that are in it, something like that, right? They're useful, but we were getting along, it's not fulfilling some long met desperate need for society. There are benefits of facial recognition that might fulfill that. Sometimes when I propose a moratorium or ban on facial recognition technology, the first question I get is, why do you hate missing children? Why do you want the bad guy to get caught? Facial recognition offers the promise of being able to find anyone anywhere. The problem with that benefit is that to achieve it, we will have to give up everything. We will have to have surveillance on every corner, right? If we want that, we will have to sacro, we will have to leverage so much in terms of implementing an infrastructure to realize that. And that's when the real abuse of potential comes to life for facial recognition. And so, the way in which I cash out the sort of net positive benefits, I don't see any way that we come out ahead embracing facial recognition. I think there's lots of room for disagreement in this debate. There are many people that say, with effective controls, it could be an effectively regulated technology, but I just, for several reasons, view it as uniquely dangerous. I thought we were gonna end on an uplifting note. Sorry, I'm sorry. I think most decidedly that takes us down. Woody, thank you so much for this really thoughtful talk. Thank you all, I really appreciate it. Thank you.


Hi guys, it's Andy here from IndyAndy. Firstly I want to say a massive thank you to Tom for allowing me to come onto his channel today just to talk about some of the things that make us as autistic people great at being employable, making us great employees. Just to let you know as well myself and Tom also made a video over my channel talking about how to integrate autistic people into businesses and just our thoughts on this topic generally. So if you want to head on over after this video and you want a little bit more there'll be a link down below in the description box of this video. But of course it is great to be here so Tom why do you think autistic people make great employees? Thank you very much Andy, we're going to go over five reasons why autistic people make good employees. Number one, intense concentration. Now you may already know about the amazing ability of some people on the autism spectrum to get intensely focused and interested in a certain task. Maybe something that you didn't know is that a recent scientific study analyzed the persistence of thoughts or neuronal firing between a neurotypical person and an autistic person. What were the results? Well the neurotypical person had neuronal firing so their thought persisted for around three seconds whereas the autistic individual their thoughts, their neuronal firing networks occurred for about 20 seconds after trying to forget something. The real world applications of this piece of science could mean that it takes a little bit longer for us to get into our flow states.  When we are in that flow state we can stay in it almost indefinitely. I'll give you an example when I was writing my essay when I was doing one of my pieces of work for university I was doing something that I enjoyed I was making a magazine I was using graphics and I was creating images and I started quite early in the morning and I decided to go over the whole day working on this project but one of the things that I didn't remember to do was anything but that I would not eat and this is sort of a marker of just how hyper concentrated autistic people can be in the workplace and that is a great thing because there is a lot of lost time that workers make just wasting time talking to people when they should be doing their work and if you're tired of that and you want to get the most out of your employees hire an autistic person oh by the way people with Asperger syndrome tend to have eight more IQ points than your average person. So the first reason for me why people like myself and Tom make great employees is just because a lot of us on the spectrum sometimes when it comes to explaining things need a bit more detail before going into things you know we ask a lot of questions sometimes to figure out what it is we are meant to do and for some autistic people in the world of work we really thrive on collecting information knowing all of the nuances of things in our job roles in our workplaces and because people like myself find out all of these nuances about our job roles it makes us incredibly efficient now I'm not saying that everyone else who is not autistic isn't efficient but I just feel when it comes to being autistic and stuff and just finding out all of the little details that make the job what it is you could compare it to a video game for example you know you could be on easy mode and you know you just go through it quite gently there's not really that much to it you know you don't find out the nuances of the game and you know how difficult it is but on the other hand you have hard mode which is a little bit more complex there's a little bit more thinking that goes into it you know you have to really strategically think about how you're going to progress forward in the game and really when it comes to autistic people I feel like we tend to do things on hard mode you know we want to find out all the nuances in how to progress which ultimately makes us more efficient and it generally I think it's a good mentality to have in any business and because we have this mentality and if a business was really cooperative with us and you know gives us those explanations it doesn't just mean that we're more efficient but it means that the quality of work that we produce will be higher so generally efficiency is just one of those things that I feel makes autistic people great at being in the workplace. Number three a strong sense of morality and justice. One of the common traits of being autistic is that we are very black and white and quite often if we are raised in the correct environment we tend to follow the rules to a T every single time any situation we like to know what we can do what we can't do and because of this we have a very strong sense of morality you don't want your employees being bad people you want them to be good hardworking citizens that are going to go there do the job get the pay leave just from my own experience of being on the spectrum and my experience of talking to other people on the spectrum going into schools teaching kids um with autism lying and doing bad things and not going straight to the rules and following them to a T isn't something that is common at all it's pretty much the opposite why not give those autistic people a go who knows that's cheesy the other reason why I think autistic people make great employees is this thing that I personally feel is a part of myself and that is outside the box thinking creativity taking something from a different pair of eyes or a different approach I should say and just running with it like Thomas said previously in the video autistic people when we are really fixated on something we have that concentration it is a great thing but I think if you couple that also with outside the box thinking and just having a different approach to things it can be really really beneficial for any business regardless of what it is because firstly if you're employing an autistic person it means that your workforce generally is going to be a little bit more neuro diverse there's going to be a bit more diversity within the team and what I mean by neuro diverse is basically someone who has a different way of thinking such as people on the autism spectrum for example and basically because autistic people can have a different approach to life and a different way of thinking outside the box thinking it can really open doors for your business's success and also it can help the autistic person thrive within your business because you're utilizing their own self their way of thinking for your business and that is an amazing thing and both sides win it's a win-win situation and also because you've got someone who is autistic in the team they may come up with solutions to problems that your business has that you may not have actually thought were an issue or maybe you didn't think the idea that they presented was something that you could do which I think for any business I think is detrimental to its success number five yes you are right it is the last point woohoo we're sorting it out it's it's all good in the hood it's the fifth point the fifth one an autistic person is direct and truthful now you may be thinking oh okay directness sounds like it's just another way of saying a little bit rude you could view it like that and I think a lot of people who misconstrued what autism is about think that autistic people are quite rude and direct and they're not very subtle about any of their opinions and to some extent that can be true but what can also be true about this is that if they spot a problem with a way of thinking with a way of doing the job they will always tell you about it if you allow them to if you make them feel comfortable and able to voice their opinions and matters you will find that a lot of the problems that a lot of workers would just pass to the side just to save the hassle they will be brought up and they will be solved autistic people work on more of a direct and logical wavelength meaning that we want to get to the heart of the issue we don't want to sort of dance around the bush as I've said in my previous videos we don't want to beat around the bush beat around the bush god damn it if you ask an autistic person for their opinion and you are open with them and you've developed a good relationship with them you are likely to get a lot of perceived criticism but this criticism shouldn't be taken as a personal thing shouldn't be taken as a rude thing if you ask them their opinion and they tell you they are going to be truthful about it they're going to say what they like about something what they dislike about something what they think will never work what they think will be something that will push your business forward and because of this it can make work life a lot quicker and a lot more to the point so hopefully this list has opened your eyes to the possibilities of new workers that can be efficient creative and can push your business further than you ever dreamed of there are so many untapped logical and creative geniuses in the autistic community there is a very large problem with unemployment among anybody on the spectrum it's very high all you have to do is google it see the statistics on it there is a lot of untapped potential here and one of these amazing people with extremely high IQs different ways of thinking about it and very efficient workers could be in your workplace yes employing someone on the spectrum is going to be a little bit different it may be difficult to get it off the ground initially you might have to do a little bit of reading not that much not not an excessive amount but as long as you just if you just kind and you try to be accommodating as much as you can try to make sure that their life at work is a comfortable and non-anxiety provoking workplace you will get the most out of these individuals if you like the video make sure to like it so that i know that you like it and we can make more of these collaboration style videos why not head over to indyandy's youtube channel to check out his stuff check out his videos he's done a lot of good work he pumps out videos on more of a regular basis than i do um so go check out his work and if you want to stay in tune with the kind of videos i make make sure to hit that subscribe button which is up there and i've done that right for the first time in i don't know god knows how long forever and you probably know that social media accounts down here facebook instagram twitter and if you want to go check out the four to your podcast it is available on apple podcast spotify and just about anywhere else that you can find it as i've said make sure to head over to indyandy's channel he's done me a solid by collaborating with me i haven't had much luck in the past and i'm so happy that i've managed to get this collaboration in the bag my first collaboration so andy thank you so much massive thank you to tom for having me on the channel today i really do appreciate it and i hope you got something from this video today so until next time see you there and if you want to go head over to indyandy's channel we've got another video on there another co lab video make sure to go check that out and we will be talking about how to better integrate autistic people into your workplace five tips five good tips that you can use not it's not going to take that long go check it out do you have a business do you want to grow do you find that your average worker is not performing to the standard that you want them to well why not consider employing an autistic person an autistic person they have a multitude of creativity logical thinking and a very high IQ if you want someone to revolutionize your business push your business further than you could ever dream of you know where to find us anyway this has been mr thomas handley from the asperger's growth channel and i'll see you guys in the next video see you later folks


Realistic Gaming here.  This is a Halloween DLC. I have like the original one before but this one looks way more insane than the original one. Let's go ahead and begin with this. Alright that's freaking me out. Dude that looks kind of creepy. We are glad to see you in the bloody road DLC the island of Sodor in order to pass the first level first find and lower five levers. At the same time you need to find three pumpkins that will try to escape from you but they will stop if you catch them they will give you bonuses and in addition they will open the door for you at the exit. Also collect five gold bars scattered around the mine then take it to the golden thomas on this card and he will open the golden thomas but don't you forget to be okay just cut off all right so he said something about the golden thomas in this card I don't see no golden thomas oh what I don't the heck he's talking about bro so we need to find the lever oh there's a gold bar right here all right okay he is on my bottom thomas is trying to capture us all right now so we got one lever so far okay where is it bro you hear that noise every time you go through the spider web okay where is this taking me wait what what is this thomas oh that's the golden thomas oh this is majestic bro okay we got a normal looking too normal looking thomas and then the golden thomas this is very majestic it's like I'm in heaven oh I see a lever yes wait I think thomas might actually be behind us no I think we're dead we're dead we're dead we're freaking heads up dude holy crap that was like super loud oh there's a lever but they will stop if you catch them they will give you bonuses and in addition they got one lever oh wait there's a lever okay cool wait is that one of the pumpkins okay cool so if you capture the pumpkins they actually give you like power-ups so for example we got speed for capturing that pumpkin hey who's who is that that's supposed to be like the developer of the game that's pretty cool okay so now we actually speed we move a little quicker found anything at all wait another lever yes okay that is two levers down three more to go I think if I'm not mistaken I think I forgot how to count but I think thomas is chasing us oh there's another lever okay we're doing pretty good so I think thomas is behind us bro I'm not lying bro what what is this oh another pumpkin yes okay what do you bring hey what no come back on lever oh gold wait I think thomas is right there oh yep let him pass oh and he led me to a pumpkin and a lever I love you thomas thank you so much buddy okay what is this no pixels oh okay this is cool it looks way cleaner than how it normally actually looks okay nice a fourth lever I think we're gonna die no he's slowing down that means oh my okay that was way too close we need one more lever wait that's the last pumpkin I said that we needed three pumpkins and this is the last one thomas is visible too this is this is huge bro because now we can see thomas through the walls like we're a color duty hacker I see you thomas I got wall hacks buddy oh please don't get me oh I was scared there for a moment okay cool so I need one more lever and one more bar of gold so let's go look around okay maybe that was a huge mistake oh the last lever that was the last lever I needed but thomas is coming from that way so yep I knew it I freaking knew it buddy you ain't catching me slipping thomas okay I think this is my last lever I don't know man I get confusion okay let's go back this way I think I'm missing a lever back here but thomas is around here yep oh my it's like a chill pill buddy okay where did I don't know if I should go oh okay that's already pulled down so let's go this way I don't freaking know man the last bar of gold nice okay I think that's the last bar of gold I need to go find the godly thomas and give it to him okay no oh is he gonna cut me off over here okay he's not uh where was this thing I need to remember where it was oh oh man wait the gate opened what okay I am a little scared for my life right now this was closed now it's open wait I have the gold bars I think there might be like three endings what the whose man is this bro oh should I go up to him okay uh here goes nothing okay it's nothing like literally it's nothing what are you eating pizza wow he ate an entire pizza and he did not share with us that is so weird okay now let's go look for the godly thomas yeah I know he's somewhere back here but I can't find him exactly yes hello there by thomas when only savior not doing anything oh wait ah that's what I'm missing I'm missing this last piece of gold that's why I didn't do anything okay so now I gotta go back and talk to the man oh oh what okay so I got all the gold bars and the gold car is moving and it's going towards the thomas that is down here I wonder what's gonna happen hold on let's go oh wait hopefully the other thomas doesn't come this way dude come on this thing is moving so freaking slow man okay um I don't know what exactly it's gonna do but I'm I'm gonna stand here and we're gonna witness what's about to go down okay so once he receives the gold he's supposed to open the door for us so we can get out of this place and uh yeah I never want to be back here anymore okay uh okay open golden open golden door okay thomas I love you man it would have been epic if you seen him fight the other thomas you know like boss battle or something okay so now apparently he's raised the gate for us the gates to heaven and uh yeah we should be able to skate this place I just have to make sure I don't die making my way back because you can still get us and uh I have to remember exactly where it is oh wait I think it's just down there it's down there but I think he's coming from over there okay nice okay please I died so many times I do not want to die yes the gate is open dude I am so relieved oh oh oh heck not man no I've lived through this so many times please don't die run run run run oh my god he's so slow now okay danger what dude what oh heck not man what am I gonna die okay go go go go go so that would have raised quit so bad if we died there because this thing took me forever okay I hate how he's so slow now but when you're playing the game he's like super fast he's so chaseless oh okay what is this this heaven oh this is level two all right now bro I'm not about to do level two considering how many times level one took me well there we have it ladies and gentlemen the bloody road of island solder I forgot the freaking aim at but if you guys want me to beat level two let me know in the comment down below leave a like and yeah thank you all for watching and now I gotta go relax because I have a headache