So what do you think would be ideal if we were to amend some of the laws we have now and get rid of consent as the governing sort of system besides delete?

Yeah.

Well, I think, I mean, a lot of the current approaches are, well, you know, consumers can access this data and they can get a big download of it or they can do a universal opt-out.

I don't think these things are possible.

are necessarily bad things, but they're inadequate things.

And ultimately, I think that we need much more robust protections and laws.

Some of those would be real meaningful data minimization protections.

How would you articulate that?

And so I would like to invite him to tell us about the traditional understanding of the Fourth Amendment, how it's out of date, and whether it's being rectified, and how it should be rectified by the Supreme Court.

Well, thanks for having me on.

And, uh, to go back to the original, uh, idea behind the Fourth Amendment, uh, it's a long history, a long, uh, conceptual history, uh, that does lead, uh, to the revolution.

Uh, the, the Fourth Amendment, uh, is best understood as a, uh, a, a, a concept crafted by revolutionaries.

Uh, these were people who were, uh, very resistant to the tyranny of the British government and the kinds of searches that they were doing.

And at the time, you know, and, and the way the words of the Fourth Amendment are, are, are, are really, um, uh...

A- a- actually, um, some words are, are somewhat narrow, but a lot of the words are very broad.

Um, where do you see, um, if anything, the intersection between these issues and artificial intelligence? I'm guessing I'm not the first person to ask you that, but it's certainly an interesting idea and, and, you know, 30 years from now when we've got robots and all that and what, you know, what's the court gonna be doing? What are, what are your thoughts on AI?

So could you please talk a little bit about the privacy paradox and why perhaps how you see it perhaps impacting the choices that businesses make in perhaps ways that it shouldn't?

Yeah, so the privacy paradox is this well-known gap or inconsistency between people's attitudes and behavior when it comes to privacy.

So we look at the behavior, we see behavior that is dramatically inconsistent with people who purportedly care about their privacy.

The myth I want to attack is that this notion that a number of folks have drawn from this, which is that, well, talk is cheap and we really need to look at people's behavior.

If you really want to figure out how much people value privacy, look at what they do, It's very easy to say stuff, but when we look at what they do, it shows they really don't care that much.

If they're gonna trade their data in for just access to a website or a little bit of a discount at the supermarket or drugstore, then they really just don't care that much, or the privacy is valued, their data is valued at a very low number.

And so why should we offer stronger protections when they really don't behave in ways that they care? It's a myth because the polls and the behavior are really two different things.

And I'm curious as to your reaction about that.

of those top problems that you're seeing in privacy law?

Well, a lot of the law is structured on a flawed model of privacy self-management, that the idea is to empower the consumer.

There's nothing wrong with it.

It seems like a noble goal to make choices and risk decisions about when to share their data and what uses to of that data they should say yes to or no to.

The problem with this is that this is just too much for a consumer to do.

It's too complicated, there's too many companies gathering too much data, and it's almost impossible to make the risk calculation.

And the reason why AI really puts this problem on steroids is that AI is able to do things that are quite unexpected And it's almost impossible for people to do any meaningful risk calculation when they share data.

And I was wondering, what conversations are you having there? What are you trying to teach? Or what are you seeing organizations and the legal profession doing that you would say, okay, I think this is the right way to approach AI in this moment?