Cato Event Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The idea of regional or state-based visas is not a new one. Indeed, Canada and Australia have each implemented successful variations that provide some valuable lessons and hint at the major economic benefits possible for us in the United States. Adoption of a state-based visa program in America would permit our 50-state governments to craft rules for work visa programs that are more adaptable to local economic conditions than the present one-size-fits-all system run from Washington, D.C. While state governors and state and federal lawmakers are warming to the idea, all that stands in the way here is congressional approval.Join us as we discuss the merits of such a plan, the implications for federalism, immigration, and labor markets, and the possibility of it gaining traction in this Congress. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unlike most other people around the world, even in democracies such as Canada and England, we Americans are free to speak our minds without government approval or oversight. The Constitution’s First Amendment and the law that has grown up under it ensures that right, even when the speech is politically controversial or otherwise offensive. Yet the battle to protect free speech is never finally won, as our campuses and courtrooms attest. And no one has done more in that battle to defend that right than Floyd Abrams, who has gone before the Supreme Court in cases ranging from the struggle over the Pentagon Papers to Citizens United and more, much more. With this new, accessible book, The Soul of the First Amendment, Abrams draws on a lifetime of experience defending our right to speak freely. Please join us for a discussion of this bedrock principle in our constitutional order. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is it time to end the U.S. Department of Education? With bipartisan support, the Every Student Succeeds Act curbed much of the federal control that reached its apogee with the No Child Left Behind Act, Race to the Top, and NCLB waivers. Now, with the Trump administration considering federal influence to spread school choice, even many of the biggest advocates of a robust federal role may be rethinking federal power. Join us as we debate whether it is time, politically and educationally, to eliminate the Department of Education, and if so, what should happen to its programs and functions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There is a growing consensus that America imprisons too many people. Americans constitute 5 percent of the world’s population and yet we hold nearly one quarter of its prisoners. In his new book, Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform, law professor John Pfaff argues that the War on Drugs and other federal policies receive outsized attention in the popular movements for criminal justice reform while local institutional actors go virtually unmentioned. According to Pfaff, the charging decisions of local prosecutors have been a key driver of prison growth since the early 1990s. Please join us for a lively discussion about police, prosecutors, sentencing, and our burgeoning prison population. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 2016 presidential campaign represented a break from the past in many ways, perhaps nowhere more so than in foreign policy. Donald Trump’s insurgent campaign did not draw advisers from the established foreign policy community — the voices that Barack Obama once disparagingly referred to as "the Blob" — and the candidate himself often seemed willing to challenge foreign policy orthodoxy, from NATO spending to U.S. Middle East interventionism.As such, the Trump administration offers a unique opportunity for voices outside the traditional Washington foreign policy community. Thus far, the incoming administration has engaged leaders in the business world and recruited from the military and the corporate sector for key posts. Yet foreign policy and international relations researchers at universities around the country form another untapped pool of expert knowledge on foreign affairs. From grand strategy to cybersecurity, and nuclear posture to democratic stability, political scientists study the key questions animating today’s most important political debates.Join the Bridging the Gap Initiative and the Cato Institute for a discussion of the ways in which international relations scholars and academics can influence policy during the Trump administration. Our panelists will highlight key foreign policy issues facing the new administration and explore how political science research can help to shape the course of the next four years.Join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoFP. Follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

National decline often arises from special interests corrupting a country’s institutions. Such narrow interests include crony capitalists, consumer activists, economic elites, and labor unions. Less attention is given to government insiders — rulers, elected officials, bureaucrats, and public employees. In autocracies and democracies, government insiders have the motive, means, and opportunity to co-opt political power for their benefit and at the expense of national well-being. Many storied empires have succumbed to such inside jobs. Today, they imperil countries as different as China and the United States. Democracy — government by the people — does not ensure government for the people. Understanding how government insiders use their power to subvert the public interest — and how these negative consequences can be mitigated — will be front and center at this intriguing book forum. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Third-party payers, private and public, have difficulty restraining healthcare prices, which are typically opaque and all over the place. A new insurance feature — known as “reference pricing” or “reverse deductibles” — has dramatically reduced prices, made prices more transparent to consumers, and spurred consumers to switch to lower-cost providers, all by making consumers cost-conscious. Please join us as we discuss this new innovation and direction in health-care pricing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since 1994 public polling has looked at the popularity of many of the existing goals and provisions of Obamacare (like universal coverage and community rating) and has found that these provisions, when decoupled from costs, enjoy majority support among Americans. Yet again, today in 2017, our pollsters have replicated the same pattern but with a twist: what happens if the other side of the equation, the cost, is factored into the question? What happens to public support for the most popular provisions of Obamacare and further, how did this massive transformation of the health insurance markets affect the quality of healthcare people thought they were going to get as a result?Join us as we dig into this new research and take the true measure of public attitudes toward the full implications of this legislation. Furthermore, we’ll examine how mandatory insurance irreparably undermines the very goal of insurance by destroying what Americans want more than anything from health insurance reform: quality healthcare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is the proper global role for the United States in the 21st Century? Since World War II, the United States, as the most powerful state, has chosen to be deeply engaged in the world. It has assumed responsibility for global peace and stability, guaranteed the security of dozens of foreign nations, promoted free trade, and posed as the policeman of the world by intervening in distant disputes with little direct relevance for core U.S. interests.The bi-partisan consensus in support of this role has recently shown signs of wear. President Donald Trump criticized it, and won. Public opinion polls for the first time in recent years show significant support for pulling back from this activist foreign policy and pursuing a more modest, less costly approach to the world.In America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century, Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth make a powerful case that America should continue its strategy of deep engagement. But what are the merits of an alternative approach, a grand strategy of restraint? Please join us as we discuss competing ideas about the future of U.S. foreign policy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On March 20 the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case it agreed to take up in January 2016. We don’t know why the Court waited almost 14 months to schedule the case for argument and did not wait an additional month — when Judge Gorsuch might be on the Court — but better now than never. Joseph Murr and his siblings own two side-by-side lakeside lots, one with a recreational cabin and the other left vacant as an investment. Due to land-use restrictions, they allege that Wisconsin has “taken” the vacant lot, which would require the state to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Wisconsin courts rejected this claim by considering the economic use of the two lots combined. The Murr case thus asks how courts should define the “relevant parcel” of land when evaluating regulatory takings. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that current regulatory-takings jurisprudence is unclear and puts a thumb on the scale for the government. Another amicus brief, filed by Nevada and eight other states and co-authored by Ilya Somin, argues that the Wisconsin court’s rule “creates significant perverse incentives for both landowners and regulators.” Please join us for a discussion of one of the most important cases of this Supreme Court term on the eve of argument. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia, Samuel Charap (Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia, IISS) and Timothy J. Colton (Morris and Anna Feldberg Professor of Government and Russian Studies and Chair of the Department of Government, Harvard University) examine the roots of the Ukraine crisis, which saw the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula, offering a coherent narrative of Western and Russian policies in post-Soviet Eurasia since 1991, and providing a balanced assessment of both Russia and the West’s actions post-2014. The authors argue that all governments involved must recognize the failure of current policies and commit to finding mutually acceptable alternatives. Everyone Loses provides a timely and readable analysis of how we arrived at this dangerous juncture and how we might get out of it. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Republicans and Democrats agree that more effort should be made to restore America’s infrastructure. But how should we decide what projects are funded? How much should be spent on new infrastructure and how much on reconstruction? How does funding and finance influence priorities? Should the goal be to create short-term jobs, long-term economic growth, or simply new transportation alternatives?Join four leading transportation experts in a discussion of highways, transit, high-speed rail, airports and air traffic control, and transportation finance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can states that possess nuclear weapons better coerce adversaries than states without nuclear weapons? In Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy, Todd S. Sechser and Matthew Fuhrmann argue that the empirical record undermines the case that nuclear weapons are a useful coercive tool. They show that states with nuclear weapons don’t have more leverage in settling territorial disputes, they don’t initiate military challenges more often, they are not more likely to escalate ongoing disputes, they are not more likely to blackmail rivals, and they are just as likely as nonnuclear states to make concessions in high-stakes confrontations.This is not to say nuclear weapons are unimportant. They are extremely useful for deterrence. But it turns out they don’t enable states to get their way with ease.These findings have important implications for foreign policy and our understanding of complex issues ranging from Iran and North Korea, to the prospect of conflict in the South China Sea, to America’s own approach to the world.Please join us for this timely and provocative discussion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Republicans and Democrats agree that more effort should be made to restore America’s infrastructure. But how should we decide what projects are funded? How much should be spent on new infrastructure and how much on reconstruction? How does funding and finance influence priorities? Should the goal be to create short-term jobs, long-term economic growth, or simply new transportation alternatives? Join four leading transportation experts in a discussion of highways, transit, intercity rail, airports and air traffic control, transportation finance, and regulation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is the Supreme Court "pro-business?" That's a claim often heard from critics of the Roberts Court, now circulating once more amid a likely battle over the confirmation of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But what does the claim mean? Does it charge the Court with ruling wrongly in favor of business litigants, with shaping legal doctrine in unprincipled ways, or with something else? In Business and the Roberts Court, Professor Jonathan Adler assembles essays from scholars who consider how and whether Roberts Court decisions can or cannot be fairly deemed favorable to business. One pattern is that this Court follows doctrinal commitments — in areas from free speech to federalism to employment and securities law — that sometimes though not always coincide with the interests of producers and employers in the national economy. As the Senate considers President Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat on the Court, join us for a book forum on one of the most important elements of Chief Justice John Roberts' rule — and Antonin Scalia's legacy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Should the United States continue to use its military to guarantee the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf?For more than 30 years, U.S. foreign policy has been shaped by a commitment to safeguard the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Yet profound changes in international oil markets, growth in domestic U.S. energy production, and dramatic shifts in the Middle Eastern balance of power suggest that it may be time to reconsider whether this commitment is still warranted.In Crude Strategy, a multidisciplinary team of political scientists, economists, and historians set out to explore the links between Persian Gulf oil and U.S. national security. Their essays explore key questions such as the potential economic cost of disruption in oil supply, whether disruptions can be blunted with nonmilitary tools, the potential for instability in Saudi Arabia, and the most effective U.S. military posture for the region.By clarifying the assumptions underlying the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, the authors conclude that the case for revising America’s grand strategy towards the region is far stronger than is commonly assumed.Please join us for a discussion of this fascinating topic. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The last round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) occurred in 2005. Since then, Congress has repeatedly failed to authorize another one despite well documented evidence of overcapacity from the Department of Defense. Last year, in a thoroughgoing review, the Pentagon concluded that the U.S. military will have 22 percent excess capacity as of 2019. The Army will be carrying the greatest excess overhead—33 percent—while the Air Force will have a 32 percent surplus. The Navy and Marine Corps combined will have 7 percent surplus in 2019. Over the interim years, opponents have given a number of reasons to block another BRAC round, citing a weak economy, or saying that closing bases amounts to inefficient expenditures of public money, or that widespread economic hardship would irreparably affect the civilian support jobs surrounding closed bases. These outcomes need not be so, and proponents have a very different tale to tell based on the careful examinations of previous closures.Join us as our experts survey the political landscape and take a look at the real impact from past BRACs. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump said that he would stop Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, “cancel” the 2015 Paris Accord on greenhouse gases, and end what he called “the war on coal.” Now, the President says, is the time for action. What will he do regarding energy? How can he do it? What will be the consequences? Beyond those questions of the moment lies the larger issue: What should he be doing? Please join us for a lively look at energy policy in the new administration on February 22 at 4pm. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us for a special briefing to celebrate the release of the 2017 edition of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers. This invaluable resource sets the standard in Washington for reducing the power of the federal government and expanding freedom to all Americans. Each chapter provides analysis of the critical issues of the day and provides policy recommendations for staffers interested in individual liberty, free markets, and peace.And while clearly dedicated to advancing a market-liberal policy agenda, the Cato Institute has always carefully avoided partisanship. It has been our position that, with some exceptions, Republicans, Democrats, and independents all share the same basic policy goals of peace, prosperity, and personal liberty. It is in that nonpartisan spirit that we invite staff and representatives from both parties to join us as we launch this eighth edition, introduce some of the key contributors, and chart a path toward a better tomorrow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Predominantly Muslim societies suffer from low levels of political, economic, and civil liberties. Authoritarian political regimes, rigid social structures, and radical religious movements that suppress human liberty in the name of God loom large in the Muslim world. Is this liberty deficit due to a “dark age” of Islam, which can be overcome with reform and a different religious interpretation? Can Islam make its peace with liberal democracy, as Christianity and other religions did after their own illiberal ages? Or is there something different about Islam, making it inherently incompatible with a secular government and a free society? Mustafa Akyol, a longtime defender of "Islamic liberalism,” is optimistic. Shadi Hamid is more pessimistic, arguing that Islam is “exceptional,” in the sense of being essentially resistant to liberalism. Please join us for this timely and provocative debate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you own a cell phone, you’re carrying a miniature tracking device in your pocket — a fact law enforcement agencies are increasingly taking advantage of to investigate crimes and monitor suspected criminals. “Cell-site simulators” or “Stingrays” — first designed for military use, but increasingly in the hands of local police forces — are the technology that makes it possible. Yet those agencies have fought fiercely against efforts to inform the public about how they are used, and a recent bipartisan report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found there’s no consensus on the rules that should regulate their deployment, or even what legal authorities govern Stringray tracking.At this Cato Policy Forum, Rep. Jason Chaffetz will present his committee’s findings, followed by a panel discussion in which policy experts and technologists explore how law enforcement can exploit this powerful tool to fight crime — while also checking its enormous power to encroach on privacy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you own a cell phone, you’re carrying a miniature tracking device in your pocket — a fact law enforcement agencies are increasingly taking advantage of to investigate crimes and monitor suspected criminals. “Cell-site simulators” or “Stingrays” — first designed for military use, but increasingly in the hands of local police forces — are the technology that makes it possible. Yet those agencies have fought fiercely against efforts to inform the public about how they are used, and a recent bipartisan report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found there’s no consensus on the rules that should regulate their deployment, or even what legal authorities govern Stringray tracking.At this Cato Policy Forum, Rep. Jason Chaffetz will present his committee’s findings, followed by a panel discussion in which policy experts and technologists explore how law enforcement can exploit this powerful tool to fight crime — while also checking its enormous power to encroach on privacy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump promised to “open up” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He also criticized political donors for fostering corruption and misrule. Later, as president-elect, Trump criticized First Amendment protections accorded to flag burning. His critics say these statements indicate President Trump may seriously undermine free speech. His defenders doubt that, and note that Trump has actually fought censorship by confronting political correctness. He has also pioneered using social media to campaign and, in all likelihood, to govern. Finally, apart from his own actions, President Trump will nominate new members of the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter in First Amendment cases. Will President Trump be good or bad for free speech? Please join us as three First Amendment experts assess what’s to come. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

House Republicans have proposed to replace the corporate income tax with a destination-based cash flow tax. Proponents say this new tax is desirable because it is “border adjustable,” which means that exports would be exempt from tax and all imports would be subject to tax. Critics, by contrast, say such a tax violates the rules of the World Trade Organization and worry that an adverse WTO decision could set the stage for a value-added tax. Moreover, there are concerns that destination-based taxes undermine tax competition, thus making it easier for politicians to raise tax rates and increase the burden of government spending.Join us for a lively discussion as top scholars comb through the implications and provide their considered analysis on the merits and demerits of these important reforms. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 2016 election saw new arguments over the old ideas of populism and nationalism. Both had seemed doomed in this new era of technocracy and globalization. New research from Democracy Fund Voice examines how populism, nationalism, and immigration affected the 2016 election. Many voters who strongly favored Donald Trump feel alienated from government, community, and a changed and changing America. What are the implications of these frustrations and fears for the Trump administration and its critics? Do the new populism and nationalism bode well or ill for the preservation of a free society?Please join us for an intriguing look at the 2016 electorate and the implications of populism and nationalism for public policy and future debates. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the potential repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act comes an opportunity for Congress to replace it with reforms that could dramatically improve health care by expanding choice, lowering costs, and improving quality. The discipline of economics can be of tremendous help in defining the contours of a plan that would accomplish those goals. It can also help predict whether any ideas from the vast array of proposed reforms can plausibly achieve these outcomes. Of the leading options under discussion, which are likely to work and which will lock in bad incentives and sustain harmful market distortions?Join us for a lively presentation as we explore the options through an economic lens and identify the kinds of reforms that are most likely to satisfy the health care needs of Americans, sick and healthy alike. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is the modern welfare state still viable? Can it be reformed? Or do we need a new model that relies less on government redistribution and regulation and more on free markets and competition? In his latest book James Bartholomew examines welfare systems around the world and documents the strength and weaknesses of their approaches to poverty, education, health care, retirement, and other issues. Bartholomew offers a new framework for expanding liberty, while battling Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump's inconsistency on foreign policy as a candidate has left experts confounded about what to expect over the next four years. Nevertheless, as he takes office, Trump will inherit a number of serious foreign policy challenges from his predecessor. How the Trump administration handles five key decisions, in particular, will shape the course of foreign policy over the next four years.Will President Trump decide to intervene more aggressively in Syria? choose confrontation or cooperation with Russia regarding Syria, NATO, Ukraine, and nuclear weapons? take sides in the brewing Middle East cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran? expand the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and North Africa to combat terrorism? double down on the pivot to Asia or find a new way to deal with China's rise?With Barack Obama gone and Donald Trump in the White House, should we expect a more activist and hawkish U.S. foreign policy in 2017? Or is the new president more likely to follow his "America First" campaign rhetoric and focus more on domestic concerns? Join us as we discuss these and other questions. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ten years after controlling the executive branch and both chambers of Congress, the Republican Party has once again been entrusted to take the reins of power under a nominally unified brand.Yet, the widely covered initiatives of the incoming GOP president have been roundly praised and condemned with equal fervor. Likewise, for advocates of limited government, free markets and a peaceful view towards international relations, the pitch has been mixed. On one hand, there is a cautious optimism for fiscal and regulatory reforms, but conversely, many fear that protections of our most basic civil liberties are now under threat.Join us for a lively discussion as Cato scholars outline a vision for Congress that honors those classic liberal values of freedom, a restrained federal government and an ongoing commitment to peace and prosperity for all. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

More men in their prime are out of work than ever before. In his new book Men without Work, noted political economist Nicholas Eberstadt describes a new population of men—beyond the “employed” and “unemployed”—who are “unemployed but not looking for work.” Eberstadt concludes that researchers have been too quick to blame joblessness on general economic conditions rather than the personal behaviors and motivations of those men who have given up on work. David Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, will comment on Eberstadt’s book, focusing on reasons why immigrants have avoided this worrying trend. Join us for a discussion of the future of work in the United States. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United States’ historical advantages cause its people to misperceive international affairs, according to Why America Misunderstands the World: National Experience and Roots of Misperception. The author, Paul Pillar, who spent most of his career interpreting foreign actions at the CIA, argues that intelligence analysis has limited impact on how U.S. policy-makers look at the world. American culture, which comes from historical experience, instead plays the leading role.That experience has been exceptionally fortunate, Pillar writes. Geographic remoteness from threatening rivals, abundant resources, and a liberal consensus produced great wealth, safety, power and political stability. Americans often take these blessings for granted, Pillar argues, or as proof of innate superiority.One result is underestimation of the difficulties foreign nations face in achieving security, prosperity and unity. Another is overestimation of U.S. power to correct foreign troubles. We tend, according to Pillar, toward a Manichean worldview, where the goodness of U.S. action is taken as obvious, nationalistic resistance to it is surprising, and hostile actors’ unity and aggression is routinely exaggerated. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eight years ago, Barack Obama arrived in Washington pledging to reverse the dramatic expansion of state surveillance his predecessor had presided over in the name of fighting terrorism. Instead, the Obama administration saw the Bush era's "collect it all" approach to surveillance become still more firmly entrenched. Meanwhile, the advanced spying technologies once limited to intelligence agencies have been gradually trickling down to local police departments. From the high-profile tussle between Apple and the FBI over smartphone encryption to debates over how to detect "lone wolf" terrorists before they strike, hard questions about modern privacy have figured prominently in the 2016 presidential race. Moreover, as WikiLeaks' sensational release of hacked Democratic Party e-mails demonstrated, surveillance isn't just a campaign issue: It's a campaign tactic too. As the nation braces itself for a new presidential administration, the Cato Institute will gather technologists, legislators, activists, and intelligence officials to survey the privacy landscape, look ahead to the issues Americans will be debating over the next eight years — from government hacking to predictive "big data" to the "Internet of things" — and examine how and whether Americans can still live at least occasionally free from prying eyes.The 2016 Cato Surveillance Conference Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

December 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of 15 independent post-Soviet states, including Russia. The political elite of the new Russia was to play a key role in a peaceful end of the communist empire that threatened nuclear Armageddon for almost half of a century. The world greeted the entry of an independent democratic Russia onto the international stage with genuine enthusiasm and great hope. Some even believed that the world was entering a promising new era. Twenty-five years later, Russia’s autocratic regime has effectively destroyed the domestic political opposition, media freedom, and independent courts. In foreign affairs, Russia has engaged in military aggressions in neighboring Georgia and Ukraine, and is actively involved in the civil war in Syria. It is meddling in the internal affairs of European countries and, some suspect, even the United States. Join us to hear our panelists discuss what went wrong and where Russia is likely headed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have persisted through the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. Indeed, the North is expected to possess as many as 100 nuclear warheads by 2020. Pyongyang is also developing the missile capability to strike U.S. bases in the Pacific and someday even the American homeland. Virtually no one believes that the Kim regime will voluntarily relinquish its growing arsenal.Many American policymakers see China as the best means to pressure North Korea to change course. Yet Beijing so far has continued to underwrite the Kim regime. What must the United States and its allies do to convince Beijing to cut commerce with the North? Would such a course most likely result in reform in Pyongyang or a North Korean collapse? Could the latter be worse than the status quo?Join our panel for an open discussion of these and related questions, as they consider China’s role in confronting the “North Korea problem.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the years since the financial crisis, lawmakers and regulators have turned their attention to the financial sector, passing new laws and imposing new restrictions throughout the sector. Many of these provisions are now being challenged in the courts. In MetLife v. FSOC, for example, the insurance giant has taken on the government’s controversial Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI) designation process, winning in the lower court and now pursuing an appeal. And in Timbervest v. SEC, the Court will consider whether the SEC’s administrative proceedings have started to erode due process. In the fervor to “rein in Wall Street” that followed, did these new rules go too far, stretching the Constitution to its limit?Join us as we discuss the importance of several key cases poised to impact the financial sector, and Cato’s role in serving as amici in these and other cases. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are at the core of a free society, yet we’re increasingly discovering that, while in theory, almost everyone believes in freedom of speech, in practice, few are committed to the policies that truly safeguard it.On the campaign trail, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump called for “closing down” parts of the Internet as an anti-ISIS measure. Trump further claimed that freedom of the press was detrimental to the fight against terrorism, and demanded that libel laws be expanded to allow individuals to sue media organizations that publish unflattering stories about them. Following the 2016 election results, pundits blamed social media for creating an increasingly polarized voting public; Facebook and Google announced an initiative to go after so-called “fake news sites,” despite controversy over which sites, exactly, should qualify as fake; and more and more platforms have adopted increasingly restrictive policies regarding acceptable speech.Nick Gillespie and Flemming Rose are among the many classical liberals who worry about the trajectory freedom of speech and freedom of the press seems to be taking. As editor in chief of Reason Magazine and Reason TV, Gillespie has faced Department of Justice subpoenas and a gag order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When Rose, then-culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, became the target of death threats and more after commissioning 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad to be published around an op-ed on Islam, free speech, and multiculturalism in 2006, he refused to retract his opinions, instead becoming a global activist for free speech—detailed in his book The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech, published by the Cato Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After another year of protests and unrest across the country, criminal justice reform remains a contentious issue. Some cities have experienced an increase in homicide rates, police departments are under intense scrutiny for their handling of police shootings, and prisoners are protesting living conditions. Meanwhile, policymakers are making scant progress to roll back mass incarceration.Given the decentralized nature of the American criminal justice system, with some 18,000 law enforcement agencies spread across 50 state jurisdictions, which reforms are the most urgent, and what can we realistically expect to accomplish in the near term? To help answer these questions, the Cato Institute will host a conference to address the most pressing issues. The State of American Criminal Justice brings together experts from courtrooms, universities, prisons, and police departments to examine the myriad policies and incentives that drive the criminal justice system at its various stages—seeking insights, strategies, and solutions. Join us for a discussion on some of the most urgent criminal justice questions facing policymakers today at all levels of government. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.