Today’s show, filmed at Oregon State University, begins with a brief commentary on Edward Snowden’s reveal of information. The incident prompted many to believe that their right to privacy was being violated and that Snowden should be revered; others considered Snowden to be a traitor who revealed secrets that might jeopardize national security. So, John asks, in light of these concerns, what is privacy (and do we have a right or privilege to it?)? Ken suggests that a distinction be made between two areas of privacy – the personal choices we make versus what we think, feel, and say privately. Naturally, says Ken, we have a right to the latter. But, John questions, don’t Americans, especially teenagers, disclose everything about themselves in social networks, therefore making the private public? Ken disagrees, saying that what individuals post on Facebook, Twitter, or other sites is what theychooseto disclose – it is their choice. Ken and John then discuss the difference between social media and a communication method like phone calls, with Ken explaining that there are different expectations of privacy for both means. John then asks what the big deal in collecting metadata is and what exactly it is that Ken fears from the collection of information – misuse, perhaps?

John and Ken welcome Christopher McKnight Nichols, Professor of History at Oregon State University and author ofPromise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age．约翰首先问克里斯托弗，他是如何对监视这个话题感兴趣的。克里斯托弗解释说，他的兴趣可以追溯到高中，当时他是校报的编辑，注意到老师和管理人员经常审查他的同龄人写的东西，有时是好的，有时是不好的。克里斯托弗说，这让他懂得了信息“泄密者”的难处，也让他产生了一些问题，比如这些泄密者应该如何向公众传递信息，如果他们真的要传递信息的话。约翰接着问克里斯托弗，美国的隐私状况是否像我们想象的那么糟糕，甚至更糟;克里斯托弗同意后者的观点，他解释说，国家、私人实体和企业的监控水平从来没有这么高过。Ken wonders whether this is because of our increased technological capacity, and Christopher is in agreement.

Ken asks Christopher what a right to privacy means in the context of the modern world, and Christopher asks the audience whether we should think of privacy rights in terms of Fourth Amendment type of rights such as property rights or a right to having your body secure. John then points out that the word ‘privacy’ does not figure in the Constitution. There is freedom of speech and freedom of thought, as well as a mention of protection of “property and effects,” but what does the word ‘effects’ even refer to? If it means things one created, like letters, then emails would also have to be included, and would that not mean that surveillance of email is unconstitutional? Christopher brings up the example of Rand Paul’s recent class action suit arguing that single-warrant wiretapping in this way is unconstitutional. Then, Ken asks Christopher why the government has such an interest in gathering this information from residents, and Christopher speaks about the security concerns post 9/11. There may not be a particular need to collect the data, says Christopher, but the government has the means to pursue the information, so it will. John is then concerned about why such surveillance is even necessary for security purposes if car accidents and other events cause more deaths than terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Christopher explains that the government may be tip-toing on the edge of what is permissible.

约翰和肯欢迎现场观众的参与。Christopher, John和Ken纠结于政府是否在使用一种被动的方法，知道我们被监视是否会改变我们的行为或思考方式，自我审查的重要性，以及公司监视和政府监视的区别。为了结束节目，约翰和肯就监控是否可以民主控制发表了评论。

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 6:57): Caitlin Esch gives an overview of the countless new technologies being manufactured to collect limitless data, what with Google Glass, FuelBand, or Fitbit. She explores the tension between early adopters of such technologies and individuals who want to preserve their privacy and talks to Richard Koci Hernandez, Professor of New Media at UC Berkeley, on the inevitability of such devices.
  
• 60-Second Philosopher(Seek to 46:36): Ian Shoales discusses Google’s own Top 10 Google Glass myths and just how irritating those Explorers can be.