Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: Meta, Blue State Bias & Privacy Risks

Transcript

Weekend Law: Meta, Blue State Bias & Privacy Risks · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: We're going to work with President Trump to push back
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: on governments around the world. They're going after American companies
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: and pushing to censor more.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been courting President Donald Trump
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: since his election, scrapping content moderation policies criticized by conservatives,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: donating a million dollars to Trump's inauguration, promoting Republicans to
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: top roles in Meta, and visiting the White House several times.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Despite all that lobbying, the historic antitrust case against Meta
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: that was started in the first Trump administration went to
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: trial this week in DC. The Federal Trade Commission is
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: trying to force METTA to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, calling
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Zuckerberg as its first witness. Joining me is anti trust
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School. Harry,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: what's the main issue the FGC has to prove? Here?
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: There are a few main issues. The first issue is
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: the definition of the market. So the question is who
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: are Facebook's competitors? That sort of in some ways a
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: simple question. Who will consumers turn to? What sellers? If
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: the sellers they're looking at offers a bad deal. Usually
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: it's raises price, they switch to something else. We do
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: this all the time. So the question is who are
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: the rivals of Facebook and who do consumers switch to
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: if they wanted to switch. Market definition always critical issue
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: in any trust cases, and the first issue to resolve.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: The second issue is are they a monopolists in this market?
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: You know, do they have a large enough share of
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: the market. Is it hard to enter the market so
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: they can sort of have power to do what they want?
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: Do we see them doing the bad things that monopolists do,
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: which often means, you know, selling something at a high price.
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: Of course, Facebook says, hey, we give our thing away
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: for free. So what's their problem? And then the third
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: thing is, okay, if they are monopoly with monopoly power,
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: have they engaged in anti competitive conduct that excludes competitors
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: unreasonably from the market. And so that's the third thing,
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: and that's where the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp come in.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: Let's start with the market definition, which was one of
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: the key points Zuckerberg was questioned about. So tell us
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: how the FTC and Meta are viewing the market.
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: Facebook contends that the market, you know, whatever it was
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: maybe in twenty eleven. Now there are lots of competitors
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: and Facebook is doing things similar to particularly TikTok. So
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: the Pedroal Trade Commission has called the market we always
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: love these names and anti trust, the Personal Social Networking
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: Services market, and then they use an acronym, so you
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: think it's something special, the PSN market, And basically that's
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: friends and family. You know where Facebook started out putting
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: people together and creating the social network, as the name
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: of that movie was way back at the start. So
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: the Federal Trade Commission says, that's really the core of
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: their services, and it's not something that actually other platforms
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: except for Instagram offer, They don't really offer that sort
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: of friends and family network. You know, TikTok and follow people,
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: but you know, not for keeping up on what your
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: high school buddies are doing. So the first question is
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: how broad is that market? So Facebook says, hey, you know,
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: lots of choices for consumers. They don't want to watch
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: reels on Facebook, they go to TikTok and vice versa,
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: so we have to include them in the market, says Meta,
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: And you know that's what a lot of the argument's
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: going to be with data and consumer surveys and so forth.
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: And the analogy that the Commission has used and I
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: think we'll continue to use, is supermarkets. So there was
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: a famous case involving Whole Foods and an acquisition that
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: Whole Foods did, and the Federal Trade Commission called the
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: markets the PNOS market got it premium natural organic supermarkets.
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: And when Whole Foods made this acquisition of another market
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: like that, they said, ah, that's the market. Other supermarkets
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: are not in this market, you know, like stopping shopper
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: and so forth. And the court in which this case
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: is being tried, the PC Circuit, accepted that definition. And
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: the point is sort of a simple one. Yeah, they've
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: got lots of things in the supermarket, but you go
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: to certain supermarkets sort of a core of users for
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: a core of things. So you go to Whole Foods
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: because you like to pay high prices. Oh wait a minute,
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: that's wrong. You go to Whole Foods because you want
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: the organic, natural, premium stuff that they specialize in. And
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: then you buy milk, so you know, you go to
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: Facebook do you want to communicate with your friends and family?
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: And then you know, maybe you'll look at some reels
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: or maybe do some other things or what whatever other
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: fees they've got. But the core is still the friends
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: and family. So that's going to be the legal and
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: sort of factual contention that the parties are going to
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: litigate over during the course of this trial, and to.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: The point of bad conduct or anti competitive conduct. The
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: FTC showed Zuckerberg some smoking gun emails, including one from
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: twenty twelve where he described the Instagram deal as a
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: way to neutralize a competitor.
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good one. Yeah. I could see the
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: lawyers looking at that going, oh my god, did you
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: write that. There's a good reason why that would be
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: called a smoking gun. You know, not every acquisition that
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: a major platform or a monopoly, let's say, makes is illegal.
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: It's not illegal for that reason. Firms make acquisitions all
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: the time. The ones that are illegal in this context
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: are those that are done to u out a threat
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: to the monopolists. As they said, a buyer bury strategy.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: They would just buy up the competitions they were worried about.
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: So on its face it could be neutral. Well, they
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: made an acquisition, what the heck? And maybe they have
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: some alleged good reasons, but then you read the email
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: in Zuckerberg says, hey, we're worried about this company, we
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: better buy it. And their effort at incorporating photographs into
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: Facebook and making it the kind of thing that Instagram
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: was doing was not going well. So they were really
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: being challenged by Instagram, and you know, they responded to
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: that challenge not by making a better product, but by
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: buying their competitor. Classic move, but not a competitive move.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: It's an anti competitive move, so the government says, and
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: so Mark Zuckerberg apparently said.
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: At one point, Zuckerberg said that Facebook's feed has turned
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: away from family and friends and toward quote more of
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: a broad discovery entertainment space.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, sure, we compete with television, Yeah, and tennis
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: and the national football. They're not going to go that far,
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: but you know the game if you want to call
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: it that. But the idea is you broaden that consumers
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: do have lots of choices, do do different things. You know,
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: they don't only look at Facebook, and Facebook over time
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: has tried to bring more things within his ecosystem, within
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: the platform. So they're gone into virtual reality. That's why
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: Zuckerberg renamed the company meta because he wants the metaverse.
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: So true that, but that doesn't take away from the
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: fact that they still sell groceries. You know, they may
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: want to have espressos, you know, in the grocery store,
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: but they're not an espresso store. So you know, they
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: still sell their core function and that's why people put
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: up with all the junk pardon my French that they
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: see with these ads constantly.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: Can we read anything into the fact that Judge Bosberg
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: has sounded skeptical about the FTC's case. He dismissed the
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: initial case in twenty twenty one, and in November he
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: said the agency faces hard questions about whether it's claims
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: can hold up in the crucible of trial.
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: Right, well, he's running the crucible like an Arthur Miller play.
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: So Judge Bosburg, just from reading his opinions, is sharp,
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: he's critical. He is not a pushover for the government,
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: but he's not a pushover for the defendants either. So
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: you know, I read this as saying he'll come out
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: with an opinion that will prove challenging for the losing
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: party on appeal, wherever that is. And I don't predict
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: that he's necessarily going to come out in favor of Facebook, frankly,
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: because he's been willing to accept, at least as a
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: legal matter, important arguments from the government and dismissed some
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: of Facebook's defenses. And you're not going to fool a.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: Judge if the judge does find against Meta. How likely
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: is in order to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, I mean,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: a breakup of that size hasn't happened since AT and
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: T forty years ago.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: Well, we haven't taken on companies of this size. We
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: did take on Microsoft, I didn't order structural relief. The
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: AT and T breakup was by agreement, so it's not
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: a decree entered by a court after losing a case.
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: So we don't do divestitures that often, you know, not never,
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: it does get done, but this is certainly of an
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: important magnitude, and you know, puts the court in a
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: difficult role of trying to separate companies that Facebook frankly
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: has done its best to smush together, to use the
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: technical term. So that's sort of an obvious remedy but
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: not necessarily going to be the one the court will accept.
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: But there are lots of steps before we would see
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: an order to separate those companies.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg has been closing up to Trump for a
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: while now. Could Trump bail Meta out if it does
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: lose the case.
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: I guess the answer is sure. At least at this point,
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: he has pretty much seized control. I don't know what
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: you want to call it. A hostile takeover of the
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission. He fired the two Democratic members of
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: the commission, supposed to be balanced bipartisan commission. He's fired
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: the two for no reason other than the Democrats. The
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: chair is slavish in his praise of the President. I
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: think that's a fair work. So yes, I think Trump
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: could very well order whatever he wanted to order, and
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: if the chairman or the other commissioners didn't want to
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: go along, you can just fire them. At least that's
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: how he sees the law. It may turn out that
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: that's not going to be the law. Maybe the Supreme
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: Court is going to not take that final step in
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: terms of ending the independence of regulatory agencies, but we'll
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: have to see. That's in litigation. But if he has control,
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: then he can do that. Even before he did try
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: to pressure in his first administration, pressure the chair of
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: the Federal Trade Commission who resisted things. But now the
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: ability and willingness of the chairman who resists whatever the
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: president wants is zero. That's said, I'm not quite sure
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: I know or understand, and maybe the President doesn't either
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: what he might want and what he would pressure the
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission to do. Obviously he's not pulled the
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: plug on this litigation, which he could have, so we'll
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: just have to see how it goes.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: Always a pleasure, Harry, Thank you. That's Professor Harry First
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: of NYU Law School. Coming up next. How the Blue
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: states could fight back when they're targeted. I'm June Grosso.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: When you're listening to Bloomberg. In the past, President Trump
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: has even blamed the criminal case against him on blue
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: states being out to get him.
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: Can we fly over a Democrat state?
• 12:06
  Speaker 4: I get it, grand jury subpoena?
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: So what happened?
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: What do you do?
• 12:11
  Speaker 4: Sir?
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: They're investigated you.
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: You flew over the state.
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: They think something's up. So now is he targeting those
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: states for retribution? On April first, the Trump administration announced
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: the closing of five of ten regional offices of the
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Department of Health and Human Services, all in blue states.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: On April eighth, an executive order was aimed at the
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: blue states of New York, Vermont, in California for state
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: overreach with respect to climate change policies. And six of
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: the seven universities that have lost funding on the grounds
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: that they didn't adequately address anti semitism on campus are
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: in blue states. The seventh is in a purple state.
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: But even if Trump is in fact targeting Blue states,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: what can they do about it? Joining me is retired
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: federal judge Nancy Goer, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School.
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: She's the co author of an article on Bloomberg Law
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: entitled Trump's Blue state bias could rip the US apart.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: Judge tell us how President Trump has been discriminating against
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: the Blue states.
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: Well, the most recent one was when he closed five
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: of the ten AHHS offices, and significantly the five were
• 13:27
  Speaker 3: all in blue states. In addition, he has suspended the
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: funding for various kinds of programs to hospitals. But really
• 13:37
  Speaker 3: he's listening, we believe, only to the red states that
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: are begging for these two return. So you know, Katie
• 13:45
  Speaker 3: Britt from Alabama calls him to rein state and we
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: believe that he will do that. So he's basically doling
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: out federal funds who had vanished the red states over
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: the blue. And we think that that's going to be
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: a pattern going forward. You know, the pattern has not
• 13:59
  Speaker 3: been completed. We haven't seen all aspects of it, but
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: clearly this is what we have seen so far, particularly
• 14:06
  Speaker 3: the thing that happens with respect to AHHS. I mean,
• 14:08
  Speaker 3: why do you shut down the regional offices that do
• 14:12
  Speaker 3: the most business, the most business, namely you know, New York, Boston, Chicago,
• 14:19
  Speaker 3: San Francisco, Seattle. It's really pretty transparent what's going on.
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: And has the Supreme Court been clear that the Constitution
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: requires the federal government to treat all states the same.
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: Well, in a decision that I mostly disagreed with, which
• 14:34
  Speaker 3: is the Shelby County decision, that was dealing with preclearance
• 14:37
  Speaker 3: requirement of the Voting Rights Act. Preclearance was a requirement
• 14:41
  Speaker 3: that really reflected the discrimination against black people that had
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: occurred in certain states in the South, that was documented,
• 14:49
  Speaker 3: that was well known. The Supreme Court eliminated preclearance, which
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: basically was a situation in which the government would review
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: any changes in voting rights procedures in those states to
• 15:00
  Speaker 3: make certain that it didn't continue to disadvantage black people
• 15:03
  Speaker 3: or didn't re disadvantage black people. And what happened was
• 15:07
  Speaker 3: the court eliminated that preclearance on the theory that there
• 15:10
  Speaker 3: was a requirement of equal treatment of all states. And
• 15:14
  Speaker 3: so if that is a principle reaffirms now only a
• 15:17
  Speaker 3: few years ago, then Trump simply does not have the
• 15:21
  Speaker 3: right to discriminate against blue states in favor of red.
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: He can't use the federal spending power to disadvantage blue
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: states at the expense of red.
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: In the article, you talk about tax dollars, and a
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: recent report from the Rockefeller Institute of Government shows that
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: only thirteen states send more money to the federal government
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: than they receive, and ten of those are Blue states.
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: Every state is an employer and is oftentimes the major
• 15:50
  Speaker 3: employer in any given state, and as with any employer,
• 15:53
  Speaker 3: the state has to withhold money for federal taxes. And
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: in the case of the blue states that we mention,
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: it is a substantial amount of money. In fact, as
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: we note in the article, the blue states are net donors.
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: In other words, they give more money to the federal
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: government and they get in the form of services. Now,
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: it would be illegal, and I have to say that
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: quite candidly, for the Blue states to withhold federal dollars.
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: In other words, the withholding that you do on your taxes,
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: you withhold for the purpose of turning it over to
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: the federal government at the appropriate time. This would be
• 16:30
  Speaker 3: illegal to withhold it, frankly, until the government makes the
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: allocations among the states equal. It would certainly be illegal.
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: But it is leverage, what we say, and the piece
• 16:40
  Speaker 3: is that the government, if they continue to favor Red
• 16:43
  Speaker 3: states over blue, will be acting illegally and unconstitutionally. And
• 16:48
  Speaker 3: so we speculate that this is something the Blue states
• 16:51
  Speaker 3: could do, although it is illegal.
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: And California has a ballot issue where voters are already
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: considering this.
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: So California Balid initiative goes even further. The Baalid initiative
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: is to secede from the Union, which is extraordinary. It's
• 17:07
  Speaker 3: asking the voters to endorse the idea of secession. It's
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: not clear what legal authority that would have, but that's
• 17:15
  Speaker 3: certainly what California voters are indulging in. Again, you know,
• 17:18
  Speaker 3: both withholding federal tax dollars and obviously, seceding from the
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: Union are patently illegal. But the notion here is the
• 17:26
  Speaker 3: government is behaving illegally. Were they to punish Massachusetts and California,
• 17:31
  Speaker 3: for example, in favor of the Red States. The government
• 17:34
  Speaker 3: is behaving blatantly illegally. There's no question. When the government
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: behaves illegally, citizens have to decide what to do. Citizens
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: have to decide what the appropriate response is. And make
• 17:45
  Speaker 3: no mistake, this government is behaving illegally on numbers of fronts,
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: as numbers of federal courts have found.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: Have we reached a constitutional crisis yet?
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: I don't think there's any doubt that we are in
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: a constitutional crisis, whatever the name you put on it,
• 18:00
  Speaker 3: I don't think that there's any doubt. So far. There
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: isn't a situation, you know, with a Southern politician now
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: barring federal truths from coming into Mississippi or Georgia or
• 18:09
  Speaker 3: Alabama or anything like that. That's not what we have
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: seen yet. What we have seen, as with for example,
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: the most recent case of mister Abrago Garcia, this is
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: an individual who is wrongly deported to El Salvador. What
• 18:23
  Speaker 3: we have seen is the government effectively ignoring a Supreme
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: Court decision. We've seen the government effectively ignoring decisions of
• 18:33
  Speaker 3: the lower courts. We've seen sophistry men outright lying. The
• 18:37
  Speaker 3: sophistry is describing the Supreme Court's decision in a way
• 18:40
  Speaker 3: which is patently false, patently false. You know, they saying
• 18:43
  Speaker 3: things like the Supreme Court in dealing with the Abrago
• 18:47
  Speaker 3: Garcia case didn't really demand that the government do anything,
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: but only they can passively make certain that if El
• 18:55
  Speaker 3: Salvador releases a man he could come into the countries.
• 18:58
  Speaker 3: I mean, that's absolutely not the Supreme Court said. It's
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: not at all what the Supreme Court said. So that's
• 19:03
  Speaker 3: sort of really sophistry in dealing with Supreme Court decisions.
• 19:07
  Speaker 3: And then there's been outright ignoring and disobedience of them.
• 19:11
  Speaker 3: You know, in the cases involving the funding freezes on
• 19:15
  Speaker 3: government funds across the country, a court will require that
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: the funding be restored, and the government is just ignoring it,
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: just ignoring it, requiring you know, courts to essentially get
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: to the point to the moment of contempt. So I
• 19:30
  Speaker 3: don't think there's any question we're in a constitutional crisis
• 19:33
  Speaker 3: when the government can lie as they did in the
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: Oval office, in the meeting with El Salvador's who Cale
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: about again, this gentleman Albrego Garcia, when the government can
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: lie flat out that he had been found to be
• 19:47
  Speaker 3: an MS thirteen member, not true anywhere that the government
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: can lie about its arrangements with with Cale. I don't
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: think there's any doubt that we're in a constitutional crisis.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: And not only did the Attorney General misinterpret the Supreme
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: Court's decision, but Trump advisor Stephen Miller actually said that
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously for the Trump administration.
• 20:12
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: Again, this is not even close to truth. When the
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court says the government has to facilitate its return,
• 20:19
  Speaker 3: and clearly in the context of a decision that is
• 20:22
  Speaker 3: about how there was no right to deport him. When
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: they say it has to facilitate his return, that doesn't
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: mean well, El Salvador, if you wish to send him,
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: we will allow him in. It's clear that it meant
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: more than that. It meant affirmative steps to right or wrong.
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: The government was responsible for a wrong and they had
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: to take affirmative steps to write it. I mean also
• 20:46
  Speaker 3: the notion that this is a foreign policy issue is
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: pure poppycock. This is a commercial issue. This is not
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: like returning Brittany Griner from Russia, which was a matter
• 20:58
  Speaker 3: of delicate diplomatic negation. This is about a commercial contract
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: between a two big dictator and the United States dealing
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: with a contract for six million dollars to receive deportees
• 21:11
  Speaker 3: from the United States. And clearly the United States has
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: rights under the contract and the United States has power.
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: If in the meeting, before the public meeting, Trump had
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: said to Bouquele, return this guy, it would have been over.
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: It would have been over. And the fact that they
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: don't even think that this is a wrong that needs
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: to be righted is stunning.
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: The Fourth Circuit agrees with you. It denied an emergency
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: motion by the Trump administration to halt a federal judge's
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: effort to facilitate Garcia's return, saying the Justice Department's conduct
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: were shocking to American sense of liberty. Is this the
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: most serious constitutional crisis we've faced since the Civil War?
• 21:56
  Speaker 3: I think that that's true. It's one thing to have,
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: you know, the pictures of the Southern States defying a
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: constitutional directive to desegregate, requiring troops to be sent to
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: southern states to enforce the prohibition against segregation. That was
• 22:14
  Speaker 3: a confrontation as between a unified federal government and particular states.
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: This is a confrontation between the federal government as a
• 22:23
  Speaker 3: whole individuals, and a confrontation between the federal government as
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: a whole and the states. It's about to involve almost
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: every aspect of our lives. The federal government is asserting
• 22:35
  Speaker 3: control over universities. The federal government is seeking to control
• 22:39
  Speaker 3: who is in the country and who is not, seeking
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: to control who is a citizen, and flouting the Constitution
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: in numbers of ways. So in both the scope of
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: the disobedience the scope of the violations by the federal
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: government on every front. So yes, I would call it
• 22:56
  Speaker 3: the most serious constitutional crisis in the Civil War.
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: And capitulation by some of the country's largest law firms.
• 23:04
  Speaker 3: Well, I think we're beginning to see something different. And
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: let me make a more general points. So, the strength
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: of the United States is not just in representative government,
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: not just having Congress and the president elected by the people,
• 23:18
  Speaker 3: not just having local governments. The strength of the United
• 23:21
  Speaker 3: States is also having civil society, namely organizations like universities,
• 23:26
  Speaker 3: and law firms that are independent of the government. They
• 23:30
  Speaker 3: stand for principles that the government can't control. So what
• 23:34
  Speaker 3: Trump has done is he's taken over the government we
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: elected him. That was the product of the voters, namely
• 23:40
  Speaker 3: that he has a House of Representatives, the Senate, and
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: the Lighthouse. But the judges are supposed to be independent,
• 23:45
  Speaker 3: and the judges have been holding the judges have reflected
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: that independence. What he is doing is trying to dismantle
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: civil society. And the way you dismantle civil society is
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: you dismantle the universities, and you'd sort of tried to
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: co opt the law firms. I think we're seeing a
• 24:01
  Speaker 3: change now. I think there was a certain kind of
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: shock at the beginning of this administration. People didn't quite
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: understand how far he was prepared to go. I think
• 24:09
  Speaker 3: that the firms that have sued the government for its
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: illegal actions, I think are going to be the wave
• 24:15
  Speaker 3: of the future. And Harvard's standing up to Trump, I
• 24:19
  Speaker 3: think will forecast other universities doing exactly the same. I
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: think there was a certain amount of shock. Surely he
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: didn't mean to go as far as he went, was
• 24:29
  Speaker 3: the sense, And the answer is yes, he has an
• 24:32
  Speaker 3: indeed further.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: Thanks for joining me. That's retired federal judge Nancy Gertner
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: coming up. Can you keep your data private? I'm June
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg Holden.
• 24:46
  Speaker 4: Almost missed it.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: That's for your wife. Yeah, I thought your wife liked roses.
• 24:56
  Speaker 4: Excuse me?
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: Do I know you?
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: No?
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: But I know you Bill little relationship advice.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: If you're going to step out on your wife, you
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: need to think it through. Do work here, because if
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: you do, you're fired.
• 25:12
  Speaker 3: I'm more like an independent contract.
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: In the TV series Person of Interest, a computer program
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: known as the Machine monitors all electronic communications and surveillance
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: video feeds in order to find people planning to commit crimes.
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: The Machine knows all about you. The series is science fiction,
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: but is it that far from reality? Our online activities
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: and data are increasingly being tracked, collected, and analyzed, so
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: our digital data, including photos, documents, emails, finances, and even
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: health information, isn't really private anymore. For example, according to
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: a class action lawsuit, weight Watchers websites allegedly shared users'
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: personal information, including health related data, with third party tracking
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: services like Google, Facebook, and Amplitude. Joining me is an
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: expert in cybersecurity and data privacy. Colin Walkee a partner
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: at holestal So Colin what kind of information did WeightWatchers
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: allegedly give out and how.
• 26:18
  Speaker 4: So WeightWatchers was able to give out this information utilizing
• 26:22
  Speaker 4: pixels that were on their website from companies like Facebook, Splash, Meta,
• 26:27
  Speaker 4: Google for analytics purposes. And their allegations are that essentially
• 26:33
  Speaker 4: every question that you answered on their website up to
• 26:37
  Speaker 4: and including you know, are you living with Type two diatabetes?
• 26:40
  Speaker 4: Have you used any weight loss medication? You know, do
• 26:44
  Speaker 4: you have a history of cancer? Blood pressure? All of
• 26:47
  Speaker 4: these sorts of sensitive information, low testosterone, All of these
• 26:51
  Speaker 4: were questions that you were supposed to answer when you
• 26:53
  Speaker 4: went to the website that had these pixels on them
• 26:56
  Speaker 4: and share that information then with third parties.
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: The sharing with third party was deliberate or was it
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: a mistake?
• 27:03
  Speaker 4: Well, it appears that it was deliberate. I mean, according
• 27:05
  Speaker 4: to the allegation, certainly WeightWatchers knew about utilizing pixels in
• 27:11
  Speaker 4: relation to healthcare information because the Federal Trade Commission has
• 27:14
  Speaker 4: issued warnings to that, and in fact, Weight Watchers was
• 27:17
  Speaker 4: sued once before regarding these types of issues, and so
• 27:21
  Speaker 4: weight watchers knew that pixels were being utilized and continue
• 27:25
  Speaker 4: to do so in spite of warnings from the Federal
• 27:27
  Speaker 4: Trade Commission. So, for example, like fitbit, it collects healthcare information,
• 27:31
  Speaker 4: but it's not a hipoprotected entity, and so they can
• 27:34
  Speaker 4: do whatever they want with that information. So consequently, the
• 27:37
  Speaker 4: FDC came out and said, no, you need to start
• 27:39
  Speaker 4: treating healthcare information wildly different than any other type of
• 27:43
  Speaker 4: information and protect it better, ie, don't use pixels on website.
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: They had a privacy policy, right, and they pledged that
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: they wouldn't share the information without written consent.
• 27:53
  Speaker 4: That's correct, but you have to read between the lines
• 27:56
  Speaker 4: on their privacy policy because they do know that they
• 28:00
  Speaker 4: share this information with third parties. And that's part of
• 28:02
  Speaker 4: the problem with privacy policies. One, if you actually took
• 28:05
  Speaker 4: the time to read all of them, you know, you
• 28:06
  Speaker 4: would never actually utilize a website. You'd just be reading
• 28:09
  Speaker 4: all of these vague details. And then two, because there
• 28:12
  Speaker 4: aren't requirements on what privacy policies have to contain with
• 28:16
  Speaker 4: certain nominal exceptions, they can get away with making broad
• 28:20
  Speaker 4: statements like we don't sell or share your data to
• 28:22
  Speaker 4: third parties, and at the same time, they can still
• 28:25
  Speaker 4: do it because they'll share that information for marketing purposes
• 28:28
  Speaker 4: or other sorts of quote unquote internal business purposes. And
• 28:32
  Speaker 4: so if you're utilizing the information for internal business purposes
• 28:35
  Speaker 4: i e. Analytics, then you can get away with sharing
• 28:38
  Speaker 4: this type of information with third parties. So it's really
• 28:40
  Speaker 4: all about wordsmithing.
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: Weight Watchers is reportedly facing bankruptcy. If it does go
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: into bankruptcy, what happens with the data?
• 28:48
  Speaker 4: So that's all part of the questions, right. So first
• 28:50
  Speaker 4: and foremost, this class action law to filed against weight
• 28:53
  Speaker 4: Watchers was filed on April nine, so they're still at
• 28:56
  Speaker 4: the beginning stages. And in fact, I do not believe
• 28:58
  Speaker 4: that weight Watchers has answered yet. If it the case
• 29:00
  Speaker 4: that WeightWatchers isn't fact going to file for bankruptcy, the
• 29:04
  Speaker 4: question becomes is it going to be like a twenty
• 29:06
  Speaker 4: three and me situation in which they're looking for buyers,
• 29:09
  Speaker 4: ie a Chapter seven or something along those lines, or
• 29:12
  Speaker 4: is it going to be something more like a Chapter
• 29:15
  Speaker 4: eleven where it's a true restructuring, in which case WeightWatchers
• 29:18
  Speaker 4: wouldn't necessarily sell or give away this information to any
• 29:21
  Speaker 4: third parties, but we retain it for their future use,
• 29:24
  Speaker 4: you know, after they've addressed all of their debt issues.
• 29:27
  Speaker 4: But all of that said, it goes right back to
• 29:29
  Speaker 4: what we saw with twenty three and meters filing bankruptcy,
• 29:31
  Speaker 4: which is, if it's the case that they go ahead
• 29:33
  Speaker 4: and liquidates company, these are assets, which is part of
• 29:36
  Speaker 4: the reason why the PLANEFF sued for unjust En Richmond.
• 29:39
  Speaker 4: And this is the private type of information that's going
• 29:41
  Speaker 4: to be sold in a bankruptcy proceeding.
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: So you can go on these sites and they give
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: you options about whether you want to share your information
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: or not. Does any of that matter in reality?
• 29:52
  Speaker 4: Well, so you've got to remember there's a slight difference
• 29:55
  Speaker 4: between for example, accepting cookies, right or rejecting cookies, which
• 30:00
  Speaker 4: is one way that they can obtain your information.
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: But anytime you.
• 30:04
  Speaker 4: Fill out a form, the form and that information is
• 30:07
  Speaker 4: going to be stored with that company. So even if
• 30:10
  Speaker 4: you opt out of all cookies, you might still be
• 30:13
  Speaker 4: consenting to them utilizing this information. Because remember all state
• 30:16
  Speaker 4: laws at this stage are opt out. What's the exception
• 30:19
  Speaker 4: of Colorado, which is a minor exception for sensitive information,
• 30:23
  Speaker 4: But otherwise, these are all opt out statuses. And what
• 30:25
  Speaker 4: that means is is while you may decline cookies, once
• 30:28
  Speaker 4: you've submitted your information to that company, they can basically
• 30:31
  Speaker 4: do anything that they want with that information, up to
• 30:34
  Speaker 4: and including selling it to third party.
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: So then as you respond to the questions or fill
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: out forms, you should just consider that information is gone,
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: whatever information I'm giving them.
• 30:45
  Speaker 4: I don't think that most consumers realize how unprotected their
• 30:49
  Speaker 4: data is. Once you go on the Internet and you
• 30:51
  Speaker 4: interact with the third party for all intents and purposes,
• 30:54
  Speaker 4: that information is then going to be retained by them
• 30:57
  Speaker 4: and they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.
• 31:00
  Speaker 4: And so the concept of privacy no longer exists because
• 31:05
  Speaker 4: we have divided human beings from their data. What the
• 31:09
  Speaker 4: reality is is human beings are data. What we do
• 31:13
  Speaker 4: on a daily basis is being collected, and so consequently
• 31:16
  Speaker 4: we need to make sure or we need to try
• 31:18
  Speaker 4: and obtain right to our data, not just privacy laws
• 31:23
  Speaker 4: and those sorts of things, but actual rights, because then if,
• 31:26
  Speaker 4: for example, weightwatcher says we don't sell your information or
• 31:29
  Speaker 4: give it away to third parties, and meta gets hacked
• 31:33
  Speaker 4: and all of a sudden you find out that they've
• 31:34
  Speaker 4: got WeightWatchers information in their website. You now have a claim,
• 31:39
  Speaker 4: plain and simple because they stole your property and used
• 31:42
  Speaker 4: it without your consent. But right now, there are no
• 31:45
  Speaker 4: laws on the books they even except for a few
• 31:47
  Speaker 4: minor exceptions, that say your data is yours. Otherwise your
• 31:51
  Speaker 4: data is whoever you.
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: Give it to, So then it would take a law
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: to change this.
• 31:57
  Speaker 4: That's correct. So for example, in Oklahoma, and this is
• 31:59
  Speaker 4: the only law that I'm aware of on the books,
• 32:01
  Speaker 4: but I would love to see it in other states.
• 32:03
  Speaker 4: In Oklahoma, there's a law that says if you upload
• 32:06
  Speaker 4: health care information to Oklahoma's Health Information Exchange, which is
• 32:10
  Speaker 4: a database that most states have where if you get
• 32:13
  Speaker 4: injured in one part of the state, a doctor in
• 32:15
  Speaker 4: another part of the state can look up that information
• 32:17
  Speaker 4: and the Health Information Exchange. And the law says that
• 32:20
  Speaker 4: all of the information and data that you upload to
• 32:23
  Speaker 4: the Health Information Exchange, you quote retain a property right
• 32:28
  Speaker 4: in that healthcare data, but then give them a license
• 32:31
  Speaker 4: to use it. So there is a statutory instantiation of
• 32:36
  Speaker 4: your property rights in your healthcare data. Now how far
• 32:39
  Speaker 4: does that extend, Probably not much further. Than your healthcare data.
• 32:42
  Speaker 4: But you can see how we would be able to
• 32:44
  Speaker 4: pass the law that would cover any type of data
• 32:45
  Speaker 4: that you'd give over to third parties.
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: So a few months ago I got to notice that
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: a company had been hacked, and it was a company
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: that was somehow involved in processing claims for one of
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: my doctors. So you're giving information to your doctor and
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: somehow that information is getting hacked.
• 33:03
  Speaker 4: So that's another great example. So within HIPPA, there are
• 33:06
  Speaker 4: rules that permit third parties to utilize this data on
• 33:09
  Speaker 4: behalf of the covertant. So for example, your doctor, he
• 33:13
  Speaker 4: gives this over to a third party so that they
• 33:15
  Speaker 4: can essentially manage it, but not utilize it without his permission.
• 33:18
  Speaker 4: Here's the problem is that I would be shocked in
• 33:21
  Speaker 4: astounded whether many, if any health care entities actually then
• 33:26
  Speaker 4: go to their business associates and bet their cybersecurity protocol instead.
• 33:31
  Speaker 4: The business associated agreements typically say that you know you're
• 33:34
  Speaker 4: going to comply with HIPPA, and you're going to comply
• 33:37
  Speaker 4: with my instructions, but there's no verification, there's no auditing
• 33:40
  Speaker 4: that in fact, that's what they're doing with that data.
• 33:43
  Speaker 4: And in healthcare space, it is all over the place
• 33:46
  Speaker 4: because you're sharing information with testing facilities, with third parties,
• 33:51
  Speaker 4: billing companies, so your data gets spread all over the
• 33:54
  Speaker 4: place and you're hoping and praying that somebody's actually can
• 33:56
  Speaker 4: imply with that business associate agreement.
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: And their solution is usually to give you something like
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: a year of free credit monitoring. But what can you do?
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: You really don't have a choice but giving information in
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: some of these situations.
• 34:09
  Speaker 4: That's a very good point. And not only that, but
• 34:10
  Speaker 4: what are you going to do about the data breaches themselves?
• 34:12
  Speaker 4: I mean, in HIPPA, if somebody has breached in less
• 34:16
  Speaker 4: than five hundred healthcare records or access, the reporting entity
• 34:20
  Speaker 4: does not have to report that hack until February one
• 34:23
  Speaker 4: of the following year. So you, as a consumer, how
• 34:26
  Speaker 4: are you going to protect yourself when you find out
• 34:28
  Speaker 4: about this hack a year later? You're not. And in fact,
• 34:31
  Speaker 4: I've been an advocate that we need to rethink our
• 34:34
  Speaker 4: breach notification laws altogether, because just like you said, what
• 34:38
  Speaker 4: do you do when you get that piece of paper?
• 34:39
  Speaker 4: You throw it away or you call a credit agency
• 34:42
  Speaker 4: to monitor your credit. That's about all that you can
• 34:44
  Speaker 4: do at the moment. There needs to be more meat
• 34:46
  Speaker 4: on the bones when it comes to data breach notification requirements.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: And what about all the information that the government has
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: about us?
• 34:54
  Speaker 4: And it's not just information that you've supplied through for example,
• 34:58
  Speaker 4: social security information in those works, but it's all that
• 35:01
  Speaker 4: information plus whatever else that the government can aggregate from
• 35:04
  Speaker 4: data brokers, which they have full rain and free access to,
• 35:08
  Speaker 4: just by asking the data brokers to give them copies
• 35:10
  Speaker 4: of that information. And just think about it this way.
• 35:12
  Speaker 4: Every time that you go to the airport, you have
• 35:14
  Speaker 4: that bioinformation screenpace check when you go to check in.
• 35:17
  Speaker 4: That information is then stored and utilized so that, for example,
• 35:21
  Speaker 4: if you're in New York City and there's a street
• 35:23
  Speaker 4: camera that can pick you up, they can then reidentify
• 35:25
  Speaker 4: you fairly quickly. And not just that, but your gate.
• 35:28
  Speaker 4: All sorts of unique aspects about you are stored not
• 35:31
  Speaker 4: just by third parties but by the government as well.
• 35:34
  Speaker 4: The thing is is that I do not think that
• 35:36
  Speaker 4: people appreciate the surveillance state that we live in at
• 35:39
  Speaker 4: the particular moment. If we want to identify any particular
• 35:42
  Speaker 4: person in the United States right now, at this moment
• 35:44
  Speaker 4: where they're at, if they have a cell phone. We
• 35:47
  Speaker 4: can do that fairly.
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: So it's like the TV shows where they can track
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: people no matter where they are.
• 35:52
  Speaker 4: It is, it is Unfortunately, it's a very scary situation
• 35:56
  Speaker 4: in which we're living in. So I mean, for example,
• 35:58
  Speaker 4: you know, one of the questions on wait Watchers was
• 36:01
  Speaker 4: have you made yourself vomit within the past week? What
• 36:03
  Speaker 4: you could imagine then that information being sold to some
• 36:06
  Speaker 4: diet pill company who then sends a targeted ad towards you,
• 36:10
  Speaker 4: And now you're getting, you know, fluff medication from some
• 36:13
  Speaker 4: third party that probably doesn't work as opposed to from
• 36:16
  Speaker 4: your actual healthcare provider. And so it's really concerning how
• 36:20
  Speaker 4: we're giving away this information, how can be utilized.
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: So what do you do when a website ask for
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: your information?
• 36:26
  Speaker 4: So again it's all about risk and so certain websites
• 36:29
  Speaker 4: I have to use, But I will tell you I
• 36:30
  Speaker 4: don't use apps on my phone at all. I have
• 36:32
  Speaker 4: like five apps that didn't come pre stored, and it's
• 36:35
  Speaker 4: because I'm more concerned about them tracking me on my
• 36:38
  Speaker 4: phone and where I'm at, more so than necessarily what
• 36:41
  Speaker 4: I'm uploading the website. Because the reality is is we
• 36:43
  Speaker 4: live in the world in which we have to upload
• 36:45
  Speaker 4: information to websites every day, so it's a matter of
• 36:47
  Speaker 4: managing your risk.
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: So then when you check, don't follow me. Uh huh,
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: that doesn't work.
• 36:53
  Speaker 4: Well, it can, I mean it can to some degree,
• 36:57
  Speaker 4: but you just never know. I mean there's a lot
• 36:59
  Speaker 4: of backdoor and so I just prefer not to even
• 37:01
  Speaker 4: risk it.
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: So I guess the only solution is to go back
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: to an analog world.
• 37:06
  Speaker 4: I think that's the way people are going to realize
• 37:08
  Speaker 4: they need to be safe.
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: Yes, whenever I talk to you, Colin, I resolve to
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: be more careful about my personal information. Thanks for the warnings.
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: That's Colin Walkee of hall Estell and that's it for
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg