bar of lawyers

>> hi, my name is neil pedersen. i'm a 25plus year attorney and i'm an adjunct professor at a local law school that teaches law practicemanagement and technology. and here i'm going to spend the next ten minutes talking to youabout time management for the busy attorney. benjamin franklin coined the phrase that timelost is never found again, and that is no more important to any profession than a lawyerbecause we as lawyers essentially sell only our time. clients come to us for our experienceand our knowledge and a certain skills set, but the only way we sell those things is bygiving of our time. and there's only so much time in a day that we can give. and so i planto spend the next ten minutes giving you some tips about how you might be able to capturesome of that time and use your time more productively

so that you can either become more profitableas a lawyer or spend more time with your family or friends or doing other things you liketo do with your life. so the first thing we have to do is essentially change our mindset.you have to realize that time is your most valuable asset. things can be lost or stolen.money can be spent and re-earned, but time is lost as soon as you spend it. in fact,it is a finite commodity that vanishes the moment it passes. and so unless you createa mindset that allows you to understand that as you are wasting time, you are wasting avaluable asset you will never get back again, you won't be adjusting your practice. andso what i'd like to do is help give you some suggestions through this, the next nine minutesor so about how you can capture more time

and prevent the waste of your time. now, oneof the things you need to consider is the actual value of your time. as a professional,if you're making something like $300 an hour, a simple one half hour of lost time in a daycan cost you $39,000 in a year. one hour wasted in a day will cost you almost $80,000 worthof your valuable time, and so it's important that you create a mindset that time is valuable.it is your most valuable asset. now, the thing is is that while we can do a lot of thingsto try to manage our day and make our day more efficient, the one thing that reallytakes away time from our day is interruptions. and in fact, a recent study of office workershas indicated that the average office worker gets one interruption every eight minutesor roughly seven per hour. that means that

almost half of the day is taken up in dealingwith interruptions. now, it becomes more important when you realize that those same office workerssaid that only 20% of those interruptions they would have characterized as criticalor important to the things they were doing that particular day, which means 80% of theday or almost three hours of each day are eaten up in dealing with interruptions thatare not critical or important to the things that you wanted to achieve that day. it becomeseven more important when you realize that the nielsen people that do the televisionsurveys, they came up with a statistic that says that an information worker normally hasa ten to 15 interruption to their day for every interruption they receive during theirwork day. and that makes sense because as

we as lawyers, we have what i call a bathtubmentality. we fill our head with a lot of things and we work on a particular thing,but as soon as we are distracted, we have to drain all that out of the bathtub and bringother information into our mind. and then when it's time to go back to our work, wehave to fill our minds again with all of that were we at that particular point in time.and so what you want to do to make the best of your time is to try to avoid interruptions.and so now let's talk about some specific things we can do to both manage your day andavoid those interruptions. so first, it seems simple, but you need to plan your day by makinga to-do list. i call it a day plan. and, you know, when i need to pay my bills at the endof the month, i look at how money's in the

bank and i decide what bills have to be paidand how much money. but rarely do people actually do that with their most valuable asset, theirtime. but if you look at the day before you start the day -- i usually do it the nightbefore -- and say, "what do i need to get done? what is my day plan for my most valuableasset?" and i write down a to-do list that actually looks like a schedule of events.only then are you actually capturing your day and allowing you to control your mostvaluable asset as opposed to just allowing the day to capture you. so put everythingon the list. prioritize the items on that list. see if it's even possible to get doneeverything you would like to get done. and if not, then plan how you're going to putother things off into a different day. and

then be sure to allocate time to your predictableinterruptions. and i'll talk about a couple of those as we go on. so let's move onto asecond tip, which is to keep your work area clean and organized. you know, a disorganizedor messy work desk can cause the average worker up to an hour and a half a day looking forthings on their desk or around their desk that they need to do their job. keep onlyessential papers on your desk. arrange them so they can be grabbed without delay. i normallyon my desk leave only the papers i'm going to use for that day and i put great big post-itnotes with the name of the client or the matter on it so that when the phone call comes ora meeting occurs, i can grab that document off my desk immediately without delay. third,learn how to control meetings. now, as an

attorney, meetings are just a part of ournormal practice, but there are ways that you can prevent meetings from draining away yourmost valuable asset. number one, only go to good meetings. not all meetings that peoplesuggest are necessarily meetings that are, will advance up your particular matter orhelp your client. in fact, there are many times when a telephone conference or evena video conference these days will be equally effective for you and you can save the timeof driving to and from locations, waiting for other people to arrive, and the like.one great way to prevent meetings from draining away too much of your valuable asset is toactually define an end time for the meeting. if you're running the meeting, you start themeeting by saying, "okay, we're going to be

here and my plan is to end this meeting atthree o'clock." and then you manage the meeting to that end time. but even if you're not runningthe meeting, you can show up to the meeting and announce to the group, "i'm only availableuntil three o'clock." and then you can manage the meeting even though you're not runningfrom the point of view that you say to people, "you know, i really need to leave at three,so if we can get onto the important parts of this meeting," you can still control yourmost valuable asset even though you're not in control of the meeting. don't allow yourphone to be a productivity drain. and here's the problem -- a lot of people pick up theirphone when the phone rings and talk to whoever calls, which immediately seeds the right toyour most valuable asset to whoever has your

phone number and calls you. and it might bethe police benevolent association asking for a donation or a vendor or any or a potentialclient. and all of those different people may be important, but not necessarily forwhat you are doing at the moment. what i say you need to do is to define particular periodsof time during the day to return phone calls. don't take the phone call immediate when it's,immediately when it's received. have it go into voicemail. if you have staff, ask yourstaff to ask the person to leave a detailed message on voicemail, and then return phonecalls at designated periods of time during the day. i have at least two -- one in thelate morning and one in the late afternoon -- so that i, my clients never go more thanperhaps two and a half to three hours without

a return phone call. but that way, you allow,you're controlling your most valuable asset as opposed to allowing other people to controlthat most valuable asset. don't allow email and other electronic communications to controlyou. and here's the problem we all have. you're sitting at your desk and you're working diligentlyon something and there's that tone from your computer that says an email has arrived. andall of us, like pavlov's dog, turn to the computer and look to see what that email'sabout. no matter how important that email is, we've allowed it to become a distraction.so here's a great tip. turn that tone off. assign certain parts of the day just likewith phone calls to review and respond to emails. do it at least twice a day so youcan still be responsive, but don't allow that

noise and don't allow the constant receiptof emails during the day to steal away your most valuable asset. ultimately, it comesdown to creating this mindset -- everything you do in the practice of law needs to bewith the idea that time is money, and if i can put certain practices and procedures inplace that will allow me to prevent wasting some of that time, you're going to find thatyou're going to have a lot more time, valuable time, to either do more work and thereforemake more money, spend more time with your family and friends, which will keep you happyand healthy, or maybe take that needed nap. thank you very much.

bar number lawyer

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang2057{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0calibri;}} {\*\generator msftedit 5.41.21.2509;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\sa200\sl276\slmult1\lang9\f0\fs22personal injury lawyer\par \para personal injury lawyer represents people who have been injured in an accident due tosomeone else's negligence. at our law firm, we believe that there is no substitute forpreparation and hard work when handling our clients case. insurance companies have virtuallyunlimited money and resources. we intend to level the playing field by doing whateverit takes so that you are fairly compensated for your injuries. contact us for confidentialadvice on eligibility and the advantages of having a professional injury lawyer on yourside.\par

}

bar lawyer

♪ i'm here because i had a profound experience coming to l.a.p. it completely changed my life, and because it changed my life in so many ways, i, i want other people to benefit from that and to know how great this program is, and i am happy to be here to help share that with other people. ♪ the mission of the lawyer assistance program

is to support recovering attorneys, so that they can continue in or return to the competent practice of the law. when l.a.p. was created it was an avenue to be able to let a lawyer get help, continue to practice law, while they made restitution, while they showed the state bar that they could rehabilitate. it started with a d.u.i. that was right,that was when the consequences began to stack up. i was made aware of the program through the office of the

chief trial council of the state barr of california. ah, discipline charges were filed against me. i had gotten into some trouble, ah, legal trouble, and that involved the state bar. i joined the program uhm, because i discovered that i had a major depression problem that affected my uhm, ability to function and make good decisions. you may know that you are on the wrong track, but not know how to make it right, and that's usually the people that come to us. we're there to help you make it right. in the beginning that might seem like too, uh, too much to handle.

our job is to make it doable for you, so that we are all successful. i was just doing it 'cause i thought this was, that my attorney had advised that this was something to do and i said okay. i'll try it. and had no idea what i was getting myself into. we are not about trying to replace the various treatment resources that are available in communities throughout the state. it's really about trying to support and assist someone, and guide them through the recovery process,

and perhaps recommend additional support resources that will be useful and beneficial to them in their recovery. our program actually provides therapy, provides this group process provides the sense of support, where all of these attorneys can come together and connect if you're open to the possibility that your life can change, your life can change. be opened-minded to it. it's absolutely transformed my life. i had no anticipation or expectation of that.

here it was about personal development. here it was an openness, it was...this is really so that you can heal, so that you can go out and help other people, uhm, by doing your job right. i had no idea that some very essentially simple changes in one's life in terms of becoming sober, and not engaging in repeatably negative behaviors, could result in such amazingly positive consequence. and it took the lawyer's assistance program for me to do that. today i have ah, 7 years, ah, 1 month ah,

5 days and 6 hours of sobriety. i can't even describe the feeling when we see a participant graduate. it's the most fulfilling uh, better than any drug. to, to see someone who came in here broken, scared, uh, no where to turn. their family has left them the state bar is ready to revoke their license, turn around now they're functioning again in society. they're back with their family. they're a successful attorney again.

they've made a whole network of friends again. ah, in the lawyer community, and their life is going to change. i think that anybody who wants to improve their life should come here, that they should give it a chance and they should try this because it is an incredible program. i think it works fabulously. yeah. ♪

bar for lawyers

my name is bob hawley, and i'm with the statebar of california and i'm here to talk to you about trust accounting standards and therules and regulations that governing the govern trust accounting for lawyers, particularlyfor new lawyers. one of the most important things that you'll do as a new lawyer is opena trust account. if you are working for government as a government lawyer or working in-houseas an in-house counsel you might not have trust funds and in which event you wouldn'thave a trust account, but if you're engaged in private practice, particularly if you'rea solo, learning how to handle trust funds correctly is critical. one of the unfortunatelymore common offenses that we see at the state state bar of california from a disciplinary standpoint,is what we call misappropriation. that's not

necessarily the theft of client money, it'swhere money goes missing, maybe it was stolen or maybe it was just mishandled and you don'twant to be in the circumstance. generally speaking, do find that lawyers are reallydishonest thieves? well, a few, but for the most part with misappropriation, it's notdishonesty, it's not theft, it's negligence, it's unattention, and it's not paying attentionthe way that you should. first and foremost, your best resource on this is to look at thestate bar's website, www.calbar.ca.gov and under the ethics page that's on the left handside of the screen, there's a list of ethics and professional responsibility resources;all of them are valuable, but there's a trust accounting handbook that's an inch thick andtells you everything that you need to know

from how to add and subtract which is somethingthat lawyers sometimes can benefit from in the area of money, to the administration ofthe trust account right on through the banking regulations and everything else; everythingyou could possibly need to know is there, so that's available for free, you can downloadit and burn up your printer because it is lengthy, but it's for free that way or youcan purchase it in a nice bound fashion from the state bar of california as well, but doconsider that as a resource. another resource for information about trust accounts in particularwhat we call iolta accounts interest on lawyers trust accounts which i'll talk about is withyour bank. banks love lawyers because lawyers tend to have a fair amount of money flowingthrough a trust account and banks love money,

so talking to a bank about how to setup atrust account and the various kinds of accounts that you do is another valuable resource.the other resource that you need to have is the bookkeeper or accountant. one of yourvery most important first hires should be instead of a new associate or a receptionistor a paralegal, a bookkeeper. the bookkeeper is going to keep you straight and narrow onan area of where you are probably weak and on that is in accounting for money, billing,tracking the financial side of the business. so, you don't have to hire one fulltime, youcan hire one part-time or you can contract with a bookkeeper or accountant, but do keepthat in mind as well. the first rule in terms of authorities that we're going to talk aboutis the generic rule on safe keeping client

property, it's rule 4-100; that's a rule ofprofessional conduct and it says that you have the duty to safekeep and that's a keyword,safekeep property. money is property and as a result you need to put other people's moneythat's not yours in a trust account and that's how you safekeep it. but it also comes, propertycomes in other forms as well. it can be things, everything from a document to a piece of property,it could be a motorcycle, it could be a van gogh painting, it could be anything that endsup in your hands where the client is expecting you to hold it for them and the duty you havefrom a disciplinary standpoint is to safe keep it, so if per chance you do have a client'smotorcycle you might not want to just park it out in the parking lot and leave it thereuntil the client comes to get it, because

if it disappears then that's your responsibility,same with the van gogh, you may not want to just hang it on the wall, you need to havesome place in the firm that is a place of safekeeping, it has to be fire proof, it hasto be strong enough to protect things reasonably, you know, because not only do you have thecivil duty with respect to your traditionary duties, you know in terms of protecting property,but you have this disciplinary duty where you can get into trouble for losing propertyas much as you can for losing money if it goes awry. there's a few other statutes andauthorities to take note of, one is section 6069 of the business and professions codethat authorizes the state bar to audit your trust account without your knowledge, so thereis a need to make sure that you do keep it

accurate because whether we do so we're not,the truth is that when you have become a lawyer and you take your oath and say "i do" youare statutorily authorizing the state bar to check in your trust account without yourknowledge; 6091.1 of the business and profession code mandates that your bank report to thestate bar should your trust account go below zero, if it becomes, if there's any payments,nonpayments for insufficient funds and the bank has a duty to report to the state bar;to report that to the state bar and then the state bar will follow-up you know with youon that. also, business and professions code section 6149 requires that any insurer reportpayments that are made in the settlement of a claim and that will result, you know, ina notice going to the policy holder that payment

was made, so if the payment is made and themoney goes missing the insurer has a duty to tell the parties involved in the processthat the money's out there, so it's just a cross-referencing checks and balances systemthat makes sure that his money's flowing around in a lawsuit that involves an attorney thatthe state bar is aware of and keeps track of the things that are going on. in termsof fdic insurance, that's something to think about. you put your money in a bank as a trustaccount, the trust account must be what's called a iolta account; iolta stands for intereston lawyers trust account, trust accounts must be maintained in iolta format and the interestis earned and the interest is paid to the state bar. so in addition, and the state barthen uses that interest i should say, so that

you don't think that we're taking it and justspending it on ourselves, but we maintain a grant program that funds legal aid throughthat interest, so the interest that is swept from your iolta account is then used throughthe state bar's trust fund program to find legal aid services for representation of indigentfolks, but fdic insurance you know, the insurance that is there if you have your money in thebank and the bank goes under; the federal government insures it. but the federal governmentwill only insure client money up to 250,000 dollars, but the good news is that it's 250,000dollars per client, so you have one trust account, you know, if you have dozens anddozens or hundreds or thousands of clients you don't have dozens and dozens and hundredsand thousands of trust accounts, you have

one trust account generally, you put everybody'smoney in it and then you have a bookkeeping standard that someone administers to keeptrack of it. but the money is insured up to 250,000 dollars per client, so if you havea million dollars in your trust account, but you have you know hundreds and hundreds ofclients in there and each client only has under 250,000 dollars they are all protected,but you want to keep in mind that is not proven to have your money in an institution thatdoes not provide fdic insurance. in terms of other things, can you take credit cards?i'll just run through a list of things that you may be interested in; yes, you can takecredit cards. you can get paid by credit card, but there are issues there. when you signup as a merchant which you are with a credit

card company to accept credit cards you willenter into an agreement and you need to make sure you look at the small print in that agreementbecause the credit card company may want to have the right to go into your account andpull the money back if there's a dispute, you know, with the credit card holder andto allow a third party to invade your trust account is a violation, so you don't wantto agree to that type of thing. there are services out there that understand lawyersand lawyer trust accounts and you may want to deal with them, some of them are endorsedby local bar associations, so you may want to check with your local bar to see if thereis a credit card process that's lawyer friendly. scamming, let me just mention this becausethis will be the final comment, in today's

world people are getting emails from lotsof people from far away saying "i need a lawyer, i need a lawyer" and i got lots of money andlet's just set up this deal and you respond to it and the next thing you know that theyrespond and say, gee thanks, i told the other side that i have a lawyer and that means thatthey just sent me a check so here it is and so you take the check and you put it in yourtrust account and you take your third out of it as you agreed to with the client andyou disperse the other part of it and then the next thing you know the bank reports toyou that the check bounced because there was never any money there to begin with. not agood a situation to be in, so when you get those emails from folks saying "i need a lawyer,i need a lawyer" and it sounds fishy, it probably

is. get a fee agreement with them, go throughall the processes, document everything, and if you have somebody that's still with youafter that you probably have a decent client, otherwise it's a scammer.

bar council find a lawyer

judy woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. miles o'brien: and i'm miles o'brien. judy woodruff: on the "newshour" tonight:president trump takes to twitter to defend his immigration order amid upheaval that broughtthousands across the country to protest at airports and on the street. miles o'brien: also ahead this monday: whatis it's like to be caught up in the chaos, refugee reaction to the ban. ali abdi, green card holder: who are thesepeople who are now banned from entering the

country. there are students like me, graduate studentswho are doing their ph.d.s, doing their masters. judy woodruff: plus, madeleine albright, kansassecretary of state kris kobach and our politics monday team break down the legal, domesticand foreign implications of the tumultuous first days of the trump administration. miles o'brien: all that and more on tonight's"pbs newshour." (break) we're having guests join me here at the "newshour"anchor desk in the coming weeks. tonight, it's a familiar face, our sciencecorrespondent, miles o'brien.

welcome, miles. miles o'brien: judy, it's a pleasure to behere. judy woodruff: it's great to have you. so, now we begin with the ongoing uproar overpresident trump's order on refugees and immigrants. john yang reports on this day's events. john yang: after a weekend of mass protestsand chaos at airports, white house press secretary sean spicer insists it's all an overreaction. sean spicer, white house press secretary:we have got to keep this in proportion, folks. this was 109 people being stopped out of 325over a 24-hour period.

and i know that everyone likes to get wherethey want to get to as quick as possible, and i think the government did a phenomenaljob of making sure that we process people through. john yang: in any event, spicer said, it'sa small price to pay. sean spicer: we don't know when that individualcrosses into our border to do us harm. and so the idea of waiting when you don'tknow could it be that night, could it be the next day, could it be the next week, and thepresident's view is, i'm not going to wait. john yang: president trump sparked the uproarwith the stroke of a pen, signing an executive order banning people from seven muslim-majoritycountries from entering the united states

for 90 days, effective immediately. across the country, there were protests oncollege campuses and at airports. a federal judge in new york blocked the banfor people who were either already in transit or had arrived in the united states. in seattle today, washington state attorneygeneral bob ferguson announced a new lawsuit, and said he's got the support of amazon andexpedia. bob ferguson, washington state attorney general:in our view, the president is not adhering to the constitution when it comes to his executiveaction. it's my responsibility as attorney generalto defend the rule of law, the uphold the

constitution on behalf of the people of thisstate. john yang: state department employees circulateda dissent channel memo. it warned the policy will not achieve itsaim of making our country safer and that it runs counter to core american values. spicer said, if they oppose the policy, theycould quit. federal judges intervened to protect foreignholders of green cards, legal permanent residents of the united states. overnight, homeland security secretary johnkelly waived the travel ban for green card holders.

at breakfast with small business leaders today,president trump said his immigration order was a success. donald trump (r), president of the unitedstates: we actually had a very good day yesterday in terms of homeland security. and some day, we had to make the move, andwe decided to make the move. john yang: he blamed chaos at airports ona delta air lines' computer problem and on democrats. donald trump: i noticed that chuck schumeryesterday with fake tears. i'm going to ask him, who was his acting coachbecause i know him very well.

i don't see him as a crier. john yang: on twitter, the president saidhe didn't give advance notice of the order because he didn't want to tip off would-beterrorists. he said: "if the ban were announced with aone-week notice, the bad would rush into our country during that week." a number of republican senators, includingmarco rubio, susan collins, lindsey graham and john mccain, criticized the order andthe way it was rolled out. former president obama weighed in with a statementtoday, saying he "fundamentally disagrees with targeting people based on religion."

he also seemed to encourage the protests,saying, "it's exactly what we expect to see when american values are at stake." meanwhile, mr. trump signed a new executiveaction today significantly cutting federal regulations. donald trump: there will be regulation. there will be control, but it will be a normalizedcontrol, where you can open your business and expand your business very easily. and that is what our country has been allabout. john yang: the order requires that, for everynew regulation proposed, two regulations must

be repealed. and it says the net economic cost of new regulationsmust be zero. the president also announced that lockheedmartin has cut $600 million from its next batch of f-35 joint strike fighter planesafter he criticized the cost. that obama statement is not worthy. on his way out, aides suggested that the formerpresident would give the new president what he said he was grateful to former presidentbush for giving him, silence. but in his final press conference, he saidhe was tempted to speak out if he saw core american values being threatened.

turns out he didn't wait very long -- miles. miles o'brien: john, a couple of other interestingbits at the briefing. the reorganization of the national securitycouncil, the permanent or principal seats, putting a political strategist in one of those,steve bannon, did mr. spicer address that? john yang: today, a lot of eyebrows beingraised about that. spicer defended it, noted that bannon hadbeen a naval officer, even though that was more than four decades ago. he also pointed out that david axelrod, thepolitical adviser to president obama, occasionally sat in on some nsc meetings and said thatby putting bannon and giving him a seat permanently

on the nsc, it was their bow to transparency. miles o'brien: speaking of seats, empty seaton the supreme court, big announcement on that. tell us about it. john yang: tomorrow night in prime time, justlike "the apprentice," he is going to announce it live on television. you may remember he tweeted last week thatthe announcement would be coming on thursday. why the change? spicer said because he wanted to -- miles.

miles o'brien: john yang at the white house,thank you. judy woodruff: and in the day's other news:the president's immigration order provoked a growing backlash overseas. in iraq, members of parliament voted to demandretaliation. under the order, iraqis are now banned fromentering the u.s. and, in london, britain's foreign secretarysaid mr. trump's planned state visit will go ahead, despite the immigration order. boris johnson, british foreign minister: ihave said that it's divisive, i have said that it's wrong, and i have said that it stigmatizespeople on grounds of their nationality.

but what i will not do is disengage from conversationswith our american friends and partners in such a way as to do material damage to theinterests of u.k. citizens. judy woodruff: more than a million britishcitizens have petitioned against the trump visit set for later this year. miles o'brien: president trump's pick to besecretary of state survived a key procedural vote in the senate tonight. republicans resisted a democratic push todelay action on rex tillerson, a former exxonmobil ceo. that clears the way for a confirmation votethis week.

judy woodruff: in yemen, security officialssay a suspected u.s. drone strike killed two al-qaida militants today. it came a day after u.s. commandos killedthree alleged leaders of al-qaida's branch in yemen. thirty other people and one u.s. navy sealdied in the sunday raid. it was the first u.s. combat death under presidenttrump. miles o'brien: police in quebec city, canada,are looking for a motive after a shooting at a mosque left six dead last night. a suspect is in custody.

more than 50 people were in the mosque atthe time of the attack. officials say it was an act of terror, andthey're calling for unity. man: normal in times of crisis that everyonewill speak with the same voice of tolerance, integration and inclusion. the real challenge will be two weeks fromnow to continue saying this, to refuse any compromise towards intolerance or exclusion. miles o'brien: later in parliament, primeminister justin trudeau spoke directly to the more than one million in canada and hesaid to them, "we are with you." judy woodruff: the philippines' national policeforces will no longer take part in a sweeping

anti-drug campaign in that country. the crackdown began in july, when presidentrodrigo duterte took office. since then, about 7,000 people have been killed. but the national police chief said he's callinga halt after rogue officers kidnapped and killed a south korean businessman for money. miles o'brien: the man accused of killingfive people and wounding six at the fort lauderdale airport pleaded not guilty today. esteban santiago appeared in federal courton 22 charges from the shooting this month. authorities say he opened fire in the baggageclaim area with a handgun he'd stowed in a

checked bag. he'd flown in from anchorage, alaska. judy woodruff: wall street had a rough dayas the president's immigration order depressed airline stocks. the dow jones industrial average lost 122points to fall back below 20000. the nasdaq fell 47, and the s&p 500 gave up12. miles o'brien: and doctors in houston releasedformer president george h.w. bush from a houston hospital today. he'd been there for two weeks with pneumonia.

mr. bush is 92. his wife, barbara, now 91, was released lastweek from the same hospital. she was treated for bronchitis. still to come on the "newshour": we did into reactions to the travel ban, including from former secretary of state madeleine albrightand kansas secretary of state kris kobach; plus, are you addicted to your smartphone? a former google employee worries we all are. we will tell you how he's trying to changethat. judy woodruff: as we reported earlier, presidenttrump's executive order barring people coming

to the u.s. from certain countries sparkedwidespread protests and confusion over the weekend. the "newshour"'s william brangham spent muchof yesterday tracking that response, and talking with people who've been affected by the order. william brangham: the arrivals gate at anyairport, not just here at dulles outside of washington, is normally a quiet scene of warmgreetings and family reunions, but not this protests erupted within hours friday and continuedall weekend, after president trump issued his sweeping executive order temporarily barringall refugees and travelers from seven majority-muslim nations.

syrian refugees were blocked indefinitely. the president said it was crucial to keepingamerica safe. donald trump (r), president of the unitedstates: protection of the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states. we all know what that means. william brangham: the trump administrationinsisted again today that coverage of the problems has been overblown. but the orders did cause widespread confusionat the nation's airports. who was turned away?

who had been detained? did having a green card mean you could enter? according to media reports, customs and immigrationofficials had little advance warning of the order, a claim the white house denied. an army of volunteer lawyers gathered to helpfamilies of those detained. mariam masumi is an immigration attorney innorthern virginia. â®md-boâ¯mariam masumi, immigration attorney: there was no communication between any of the agencies. i think that this order was just issued withoutany cooperation, collaboration.

and it's caused a lot of confusion on thepart of so many agencies. without the knowledge and whether those peopleare back there, we can't help. william brangham: even members of congresssaid they were in the dark. representative don beyer, a virginia democrat,was at dulles trying to find out if people being detained had access to lawyers, as afederal judge had ordered. beyer said he couldn't even find out how manypeople were being held. so, you, as a member of congress, cannot getan answer as to how many people our government is holding here? rep.

don beyer (d), virginia: that's exactly correctright now. this notion of cooperation between the executivebranch and the legislative branch seems to have totally broken down. william brangham: and it wasn't just democrats. congresswoman barbara comstock is a republicanwho's long advocated for stricter vetting of immigrants. but she said this move was too broad and poorlyexecuted. barbara comstock (r), virginia: we need togo back to the drawing board on this. as i have consistently said, we shouldn'thave a ban on people coming to this country

based on religion. william brangham: the executive order causedproblems outside the u.s. as well. with the policy issued so swiftly, ali abdididn't know what to do. abdi is a yale ph.d. student originally fromiran who was studying abroad. he lives in the u.s. and has a green card. and even though officials have clarified thatmeans he can come home, he was worried about trying. i spoke with him via skype from dubai thismorning. ali abdi, green card holder: there has beeneven changes in the way the order has been

interpreted over the last 48 hours. and i am very, very hopeful that the otherside of the u.s., which is not bigotry and racism, changes the status quo. william brangham: he says people like himare not the ones to be feared. ali abdi: let's see who are these people whoare now banned from entering the country. there are students like me, graduate studentswho are doing their ph.d.s, doing their master's. and they were later meant to serve the americanpublic by teaching there, by producing knowledge there. william brangham: another ph.d. student andgreen card holder tried her luck getting back

home on friday night. nisrin elamin is sudanese, but she's livedin the u.s. for 20 years. she's getting her ph.d. at stanford, but wasin sudan doing research. her return was a homecoming like no other. nisrin elamin, green card holder: i was takento a room and i was patted down, which was quite uncomfortable because i was touchedin my chest and groin area. and then i was handcuffed very briefly, atwhich point i started to cry, not so much because of the handcuffs, but because, atthat point, i felt like i was probably going to get deported.

william brangham: after more than five hoursat jfk airport in new york, elamin was released and told it would be best for her not to leavethe u.s. again, leaving her potentially separated from her family indefinitely. nisrin elamin: but the order, as it standsright now, my parents aren't green card holders, and they, at this point, will not be ableto apply for a visa to enter the united states if they wanted to visit me. similarly, my sister, who lives in australiaand is a dual citizen, cannot apply for a visa. so, at present, we're in three different continents,and we can't see each other because i'm also

not comfortable traveling. and that makes me very sad. it also scares me a little bit. zainab chaudry, council on american-islamicrelations: with just a stroke of a pen, people's lives have changed completely. william brangham: zainab chaudry is with thecouncil on american-islamic relations. she arranged for some speakers to come tothis muslim center in maryland to help answer people's questions. her group, cair, filed a federal lawsuit todaychallenging the constitutionality of the president's

order. zainab chaudry: i received a phone call froma man who's not a citizen. he's a legal permanent citizen, lpr, and hismother passed away in iran. and he was advised by his attorney to nottravel to iran to bury his mother because he wouldn't be able -- chances are he wouldn'tbe able to return to the united states. william brangham: last night at his mosquein washington, d.c., imam talib shareef said even american citizens in his congregationare afraid. talib shareef, imam: they're afraid becausethey don't know. obviously, there's a sense of anger rightnow that this is happening.

they're saying, how could this have been allowedto happen? they're contributing citizens. they haven't done anything wrong. they have no intentions of doing anythingwrong. william brangham: he's worried these fearscould fester into anger, and stir the pot of resentment. talib shareef: we're now going to create enemiesand we're going to divide the country further. they are hearing significant people from theadministration saying, we're just getting started.

so, what does that mean? what does that mean for the citizens who sharea religious label that has been targeted? what does that mean? william brangham: the trump administrationsays that, in time, people will see the value of this action and it will improve the nation'ssecurity. but, meanwhile, protesters, lawyers and religiousgroups alike continue to watch, warily. for the "pbs newshour" i'm william branghamin washington, d.c. judy woodruff: now, for more on the executiveorder on refugees and visa holders and changes the president to the makeup of the nationalsecurity council, we turn first to former

secretary of state madeleine albright. she served as the united states' top diplomatduring the clinton administration. when we spoke a short time ago, i began byasking her reaction to the trump white house ban on immigrants from seven countries. madeleine albright, former u.s. secretaryof state: judy, i'm appalled, because it's done everything except keep america safer. and let me just say, i kind of have lookedat things thinking that they made this executive action without really understanding what it'sall about. so, it was unprepared, i would say, becausethey didn't really see how the government

works. they didn't really contact the various departmentsthat are part of this homeland security, trying to figure out what would happen once you dosomething like this from the oval office. so, unprepared. and then i think, also, part of the problemwas, they didn't understand what i say the unintended consequences of this, because thetruth is that the countries that have been designated are now reacting, creating moreproblems for us, and then banning people -- our people from going there. for instance, in iraq, how do we protect ourtroops?

what about the people that are interpreting? and then i think all of it is based on untruefacts. and so i think it is a very serious problemin terms of how the whole system works. judy woodruff: well, let me take a coupleof those, one at a time. what they're saying is if -- they're saying,if they had let the rest of the government know what they were doing, that it would haveleaked, and they said there would have been a flood of people trying to get in. and they also say that they're basically onlyfollowing what the obama administration had done a few years ago in listing countriesthat were the most for the united states to

fear in terms of terrorism. madeleine albright: well, the latter is true. what was happened was, there was an incidentwhere something was coming out of iraq. they were concerned about what the facts reallywere. they wanted to re-vet some people. they didn't have enough manpower to do that,so things slowed down. so there is nothing like that that happenedin the obama administration. i think the excuse about not letting othersknow, first of all, they need to understand that the government, in fact, when peopletrust each other, doesn't leak out when it's

an important issue. but how can you not let the departments thathave something to do with executing the order not know? because i think that they were genuinely surprisedby, you know, how slow it was, what happened when they detained people, what happened thenwhen there were demonstrations against it. so i'm willing to say they were surprisedat the reaction to it, but that's a sign of the fact they didn't understand what theywere doing. judy woodruff: the other argument they make,secretary albright, is this will all settle out, it's just the hurly-burly of the firstfew days, that it's only 109 people, they

said, out of over 300,000 travelers over theweekend, and that we're all making too much of this. madeleine albright: no, we're not, becausewhat it's shown is that the united states is not prepared to deal with something thatthe president has decided he wants to do, so it puts real question as to how the systemworks. it also has undermined other countries' trustin what we do, trying to figure out who in the department is responsible for what. and then i actually think it's a gift to thosethat hate us, because now what has happened is isis is really kind of saying, yes, right,this is what america is like, you can't trust

us. and so i think they basically were completelyunprepared for what they kind of unwrapped, without really considering the unintendedconsequences, and i don't think it makes us any safer. judy woodruff: one of the other moves thetrump administration made over the weekend was to announce a reorganization of the nationalsecurity council, which, in effect, appears to downgrade the role of the director of nationalintelligence, and also the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. they had also downgraded the role of the ciadirector, but they now in the last -- today

have restored that. how do you read that move on the part of presidenttrump? madeleine albright: well, i teach about decision-making,so i have been thinking about this. and i think it also wasn't thought out, andpartially because -- we have heard a lot of stories about how the transition really wasn'tdone very well. i have been transitioned into and i have donethe transitioning. it's a fascinating process of turning overthe crown jewels when it's done properly. that didn't happen. and so i think they didn't understand howthe system works, and, in fact, downgrading

the role of the chairman of the joint chiefs. maybe they think they already have too manygenerals, but the bottom line is that it's important for that person to be in the meetingsno matter what. and what they have done is say only when it'sreally necessary, decided by the national security adviser, and the same for the directorof national intelligence. it's important to know the intelligence andthe response of the military. judy woodruff: the other change they madewas to add steve bannon, who is a senior adviser to the president, to the -- the campaign adviser-- add him to the national security council attendees, principals -- i guess you callit principals list.

their argument is, well, the obama administrationhad people like david axelrod and others who sat in on national security meeting. madeleine albright: that -- you know, frankly,that is the most outrageous thing that they have done, is to add somebody with an extremeideology to those that are supposed to be making decisions based on u.s. national interests,not on ideology. and it's one thing to have one of the adviserscome in on occasion when the issue is some combination of domestic and foreign policy,but not to have somebody with the views of bannon that we now hear to be there all thetime. and the troublesome part about all this is,what is the circle around the president?

who does he listen to? and the examples that we have had, whetherit's now with the immigration executive action or just generally, is the decision-makingprocess. we're not a new country. we have had a decision-making process. and they have, in fact, developed somethingdifferent. and, judy, i thought the following. disruption is not a bad thing for bureaucracy. destruction, however, is very dangerous.

and so what we have seen in the last week,i think, is dangerous. judy woodruff: very quickly, last question. impression of rex tillerson, who is the president'sdesignee to be the next secretary of state? madeleine albright: well, i have met him. i think he's a very fine person. he's been a very good ceo of exxon. the question is how he's going to operatewithin this particular setup, how he's going to work with the state department, where atop group of people have left who are some of the operational people, and then how ishe going to define what the roles of the state

department is? judy woodruff: madeleine albright, formersecretary of state, thank you very much for talking with us. madeleine albright: great to be with you. thank you. miles o'brien: and for a different point ofview, i spoke a short while ago to kansas secretary of state kris kobach, was a topadviser to mr. trump during his presidential campaign and transition process. i began by asking him whether the u.s. issafer now as a result of the white house ban.

kris kobach (r), kansas secretary of state:these seven countries are the hotbeds of terrorism. they include places where isis controls foreignterritory. and they are places where people are comingin to receive terrorist training and then being pushed out to carry out acts of terrorismacross europe, perhaps in the united states and elsewhere. and so, absolutely, it makes sense to puta temporary bar on people holding those passports from coming into the united states. also another really important part of thisexecutive order was the reviewing our refugee program, also putting that on hold, becausewe have huge problems with terrorists abusing

our refugee program. i might just give you a quick statistic there. since the 1990s, there have been 18 majorterrorists who have either committed acts of terror or names you would recognize whogot into our refugee program. the blind sheik, omar abdel-rahman, came inthrough the refugee program. the two boston marathon bombers originallycame into the united states through the refugee program. the bowling green, kentucky, terrorists, refugeeprogram. so, it makes sense to say, hey, we're a verygenerous nation.

we give out more asylum. we allow in more refugees than any other countryon the planet, but we are going to reassess how we screen people because way too manyterrorists are fraudulently coming into the united states as refugees. miles o'brien: the one problem with all thatargument is that, of the seven countries singled out, no refugees from those particular countriesare implicated in any attacks. were the wrong countries picked? kris kobach: no, i don't think so. the bowling green, kentucky, i believe thosewere from iraq.

the geographical locus -- focus of where theterrorists are active changes with time, right? so, al-qaida wasn't necessarily active inthe exact same countries now. somalia has become much more active as a placewhere terrorist training and terrorist activity occurs. so it only makes sense that the seven countriesor 10 countries or however many we're most interested in might change over time as thefacts on the ground change. miles o'brien: a practical question here. you mentioned somalia. if you're trying to do extreme vetting ofsomeone who comes from somalia, how on earth

do you do that? somalia doesn't even really have a functioninggovernment. what does extreme vetting look like when aperson comes out of a country like that? kris kobach: that's a great question, becausewhat happens when someone comes in, let's take, for example, someone coming in as arefugee. so, they say that they have a credible fearof persecution -- that's the legal standard -- in their home country. well, if the home country doesn't even havea functioning government, you don't have any police departments, you don't have any centralizeddatabase of records, you may not have any

way of verifying anything that this personis saying. and, right now, in the refugee program forthe past, you know, 10 years or so, there has been a sort of get-to-yes mentality, takethe refugee's, the intending refugee's word for it. i think we have to be much stricter. and we have to say, look, we need some proof,we need some evidence that your story is true, because there are so many cases that we learnabout after the fact where the refugee's story was completely untrue. miles o'brien: seems like that would be verydifficult to come up with any kind of documentation

in that situation. kris kobach: it would. it may be. miles o'brien: let's talk about politics forjust a -- yes. some republicans on the hill are even expressingconcerns about this, senator mccain among them, saying that it basically fits in -- i'mparaphrasing -- fits into the isis narrative, in essence, that their -- the propaganda thatthey spew out is that america is anti-muslim, and this fits into that narrative well. if the real concern, the real threat is homegrownterrorism, incited by the internet, by twitter,

by facebook, if that's the real threat, haven'twe made ourselves less safer by adding to this isis narrative? kris kobach: i don't think so at all. i mean, we as a nation can walk and chew gumat the same time. you're absolutely right. homegrown terrorism is a threat, but so isimported terrorism where the terrorists are trained overseas and they are sent to theunited states to kill americans. so we have to do both. and there's no reason why we can't do both.

but this is the best way to put enhanced screeningon people seeking entry to the united states, the best way to protect the american public. and, remember, that's the first and highestpurpose of the united states government is to protect american citizens. we are not facing an invasion from a conventionalarmy anytime soon, but we are facing individual acts of terrorism. and many of those individuals come in acrossour border through a port of entry. and we owe it to the american people. the u.s. government owes it to the americanpeople to be very cautious in allowing someone

in from these regions of the world where weknow isis is active and there is active terrorist activity and training going on. miles o'brien: is it possible, though, wehave given isis a case in point for their argument that the u.s. is anti-muslim? kris kobach: i don't think so. you know, i hear the argument made that thisexecutive order is anti-muslim, and it seems to me that that's clearly false. i mean, the -- it's based on the country oforigin. so, if you're an atheist, if you're a christian,if you're a jew coming from one of these countries,

you will be subject to the same bar on entryas a muslim coming from these countries. furthermore, you have got about 40 additionalcountries in the world that are majority muslim and they are not affected by this executiveorder. so, clearly, on its face, it is not anti-muslim. it is a geographic-based action to secureamerica from people coming from dangerous places in the world. it is a geographic ban. it's not in any way a religious ban. miles o'brien: ok, but there is a religiouscomponent to this.

christians, of course, are specifically singledout for priority. let me ask you this. you teach or have taught constitutional law. how does this square with the constitution? you know, i'm your student for a moment. teach me about the constitution and how thisjibes with what the founding fathers were thinking. kris kobach: ok. well, first of all, the -- no one who is outsideof the united states and is not a united states

citizen has a constitutional right to enterthe united states. i have heard some people who are critics ofthe president's executive order argue that it's unconstitutional. that's absolutely incorrect. there is no constitutional right to enterthe united states. even if you have already been in the unitedstates in the past, you have no constitutional right to come back in. second thing is, the congress has the authorityto -- it has what's called plenary authority to pass laws relating to immigration.

it has the first and highest authority topass those laws. and there's a statute, title 8, section 1182f,which gives the president a discretion that if he feels that the entry of any alien orclass of aliens would be detrimental to the national interests of the united states, hecan exclude those individuals. and there are similar statutes going all theway back to the beginning in 1789 with the alien acts. george washington, after they were passed,had authority to exclude or remove anyone who was a national security threat way backthen. so, legally speaking, the president is onabsolutely secure ground.

people may quibble about the politics of itall, but i think, in terms of the national security of the united states, these executiveorders are a win. and i think that you will find that, in theend, the vast majority of americans will be supportive. miles o'brien: kansas secretary of state andformer trump adviser kris kobach, thank you very much. kris kobach: my pleasure. miles o'brien: in iraq, the ban hit one groupof people particularly hard, interpreters and other staff who assisted american forcesover the last 14 years of conflict there.

they are eligible to apply for a special visaprogram to emigrate here. but one former interpreter and his familyfind their plans to move here are now in doubt. special correspondent jane ferguson reportsfrom northern iraq. jane ferguson: after seven years working withthe u.s. military, abdul hamid abdul ghani has plenty of souvenirs. he proudly shows us military coins given tohim by u.s. commanders in iraq. abdul hamid, former iraqi interpreter: andthis was what i got from general petraeus. jane ferguson: as an iraqi fluent in english,he was thrilled to get a job working with american troops in 2003 as a translator.

he dreamt of living in the u.s. one day. after lengthy vetting, including backgroundchecks, fingerprinting and extensive interviews, that day was almost at hand. ghani, his wife and three children were supposedto start a new life in san diego next week. they would be admitted to the u.s. on a specialimmigrant visa, recognizing the work he had done for american soldiers. but, yesterday, he got an e-mail saying thoseplans had been canceled. abdul hamid: my bags are ready. they are all packed.

i almost have nothing here now. my life is destroyed. i can put it that way. it's totally destroyed. jane ferguson: president trump's executiveorder placed a 90-day block on visas for iraqis to visit the u.s. even if that changes thereafter, abdul hamid'svisa requires he enter the u.s. before the end of february. abdul hamid: how can the president of theunited states do such a thing?

jane ferguson: the work abdul hamid did forthe military has placed him in danger. in today's iraq, having helped americans chasedown suspected terrorists is a risky reputation to have. his wife is frightened. safa abdul ghani, iraq: we are not safe here,especially his work from -- with the americans, and he -- threatened... abdul hamid: threatened, yes. safa abdul ghani: threatened, yes, from terrorists. jane ferguson: she is also concerned for theireldest child.

tariq is 12 and has down syndrome. his parents had hoped to find better specialistcare for him in the u.s. it's not just ordinary iraqis who are devastatedby the news of a visa ban. parliamentarians in baghdad are angry, andcalling for a strong response, escalating the diplomatic crisis. iraqi lawmakers voted today to ban visas foramericans for 90 days. while the measure has not yet been approvedby the entire government, it would affect the large numbers of american contract supportstaff aiding the american military in iraq right now, who are fighting a crucial battleagainst isis.

the ghanis are still not sure whether theirplans to move to the u.s. are impossible now. have you told the kids? do they understand? abdul hamid: i haven't told them that we arenot going yet. i can't really look at them in the eye andtell them, hey, we are not going, because they have really high hopes, you know? jane ferguson: so, their bags remain packed,ready for a future that now seems much less certain. for the "pbs newshour," i'm jane fergusonin dohuk, iraq.

back in this country, president trump's immigrationorder has drawn deep divisions among lawmakers. elected officials have voiced both supportand condemnation, while a number are yet to weigh in. here to help us understand the lay of theland on this and other issues of the week, our politics monday team, amy walter of thecook political report and tamara keith of npr. welcome to both of you. it's been such a quiet week. (laughter)

judy woodruff: but i thought we would cometogether anyway. so, this immigration order we have been talkingabout all night, it's a policy move, serious consequences, but it also, amy, is somethingthat president trump talked about during the campaign. he said he was going to move on immigration. amy walter, the cook political report: right. judy woodruff: the public reaction is interesting. a pew poll out earlier this month showed,what, by 48 to 42 percent, people supported this.

amy walter: yes, this is actually -- thisis a quinnipiac poll that came out earlier this month. and they said very specifically support oroppose suspending immigration from terror-prone areas, right, sounds very familiar, even ifit means turning away refugees. so, they put that in there as well -- 48 percentapproved. but, as you know, judy, the world that welive in right now, not surprisingly, 72 percent of republicans supported it. only 24 percent of democrats said they supportedit, and independents closely divided. and such we have the world that we're goingto inhabit, it looks like, for the foreseeable

future. judy woodruff: and, tam, what we're watchingis a very divided political reaction, democrats almost universally saying this is a terribleidea, republicans divided. tamara keith, national public radio: yes,democrats rallying at the supreme court tonight, introducing legislation that will go nowhereor not even be able to be brought up on the floor, but democratic lawmakers are protesting. on the republican side, there are sort ofa range of reactions. there are people who strongly support whatpresident trump has signed and what he is doing.

there are others who are expressing concerns,and that sort of falls into two categories. there are people who express a moral concernor a concern that action like this could actually make us less safe, rather than more safe,could give a propaganda advantage to organizations like isis. that's john mccain, lindsey graham. not very many republican senators going thatfar. most of them are talking more about like logisticalchallenges, about the rollout could have been a better. well, the rollout could have been a lot better.

but one senator said, this extreme vettingproposal needed more extreme vetting itself. judy woodruff: amy, is there -- we're so earlyinto this next term. amy walter: that's right. judy woodruff: is there a political calculationfor these republicans? amy walter: right. i think a lot of them are still waiting tofind out how people are reacting to it. so, we pointed to the poll, which was theoretical. what do you think about the theory behindthis? -- 48 percent support.

now that we have seen it, the rollout clearlyvarying, not very good, once we see the sort of human cost of it, is this going to changepeople's minds, or are they going to get just even more hunkered down in this? and, as we all know, politicians like to waitand watch for where the folks are going. i think it's really important, to tam's point,that even those democrats who sit in red states, really red states, have come out unambiguouslyagainst donald trump. and even republicans who sit in sort of squishy,tentatively republican districts, most of them have held back and not said much. some have come out, but mostly they have heldback.

i think you are going to see those battlelines. as we saw in that poll, if you're a democrat,you are going to support trump -- you're going to oppose him. if you're a republican, you are going to supporthim. judy woodruff: and yet, tam, we see, lookingat a news organization, or at least an editorial page that normally is very friendly to donaldtrump, the wall street journal, writing today, very critical, saying the way -- criticalof the way it was done, saying he needlessly alienated people, but then goes on to say,"the danger is, he will alienate the friends and allies at home and abroad he needs tosucceed."

so, the journal taking a longer look at this. tamara keith: right. and that gets to some of the national securityconcerns, that national security experts and veterans of national security argue that thiscould actually put us in more danger, that there are -- the best allies that americahas in fighting organizations like isis are muslims themselves. and i think that that's getting at that, butit also gets at a little -- it's almost like a more liberal editorial board saying to theobama administration, oh, my gosh, you really could have done the rollout of obamacare betterseveral years ago.

judy woodruff: sure. well, it reminds us, amy, these issues arecomplicated. amy walter: they are. and i think i will go back to the point thatyou brought up earlier, which is, elections have consequences. donald trump the candidate said he was goingto do this. a lot of people voted. millions and millions of people voted fordonald trump the candidate. he's now the president, and he's going throughand he's doing this.

and so the sort of outrage that we're seeingaround the country, while it's not surprising, it's also has to -- you have to remember thatthis is something that he promised that he was going to do on the campaign trail andthat he's putting out in reality. what we need to do -- and we talked aboutthis last week -- is to wait and watch for the longer-term implications. judy woodruff: right. amy walter: is it going to have an impacton our national security? we don't know. there may be something linked to that.

is it going to have something to do with ourdiplomacy? is it going to have a detrimental impact onour diplomacy? maybe. we don't know yet. but it's clear that this is something he saidhe was going to do, and he's implementing it. judy woodruff: very quickly to both of you,another thing we saw is the influence of steve bannon, senior adviser to the president. we saw the president in the last few dayssay that he wants to add steve bannon, tam,

to the national security council principals,the people who sit in on these very important private sessions on what the country does. steve bannon is turning out to be a majorplayer there. tamara keith: and when the senior stuff wasannounced, he was announced at the same time as the chief of staff as sort of a co-equal. and it's very clear -- it was clear in theinaugural address. it's been clear in many of these memorandaand orders that his voice is there, his words are there. judy woodruff: and people watching becauseof this alt-right narrative around breitbart.

amy walter: right, and that he is going tobe a very influential voice. but, at the end of the day, it's donald trump'sname on all the legislation and all the executive orders, and the buck stops with him. judy woodruff: amy walter, tamara keith, politicsmonday, thank you both. tamara keith: you're welcome. amy walter: you're welcome. judy woodruff: appreciate it. and a postscript. i told you on friday that i would be interviewingvice president mike pence tomorrow, but i

will now be sitting down with him this wednesdayat the white house. tune in. miles o'brien: one billion of us own a smartphone,and we know how addicting it can be. one former google employee says this is noaccident. indeed, it is by design. and he became troubled by the relentless effortsof app developers to keep us glued to the gadgets. so, tristan harris founded an organizationcalled time well spent. he is asking the tech industry to bring whathe calls ethical design to its products.

"newshour" special correspondent cat wisehas more, part of our ongoing collaboration with "the atlantic." tristan harris, founder, time well spent:i noticed when i was at stanford, there was a class called the persuasive technology designclass, and it was a whole lab at stanford that teaches students how to apply persuasivepsychology principles into technology to persuade people to use products in a certain way. so, it's not about giving you all this freedom. it's about sucking you in to take your time. cat wise: so, the goal is to keep us on ourdevices longer.

why? tristan harris: for any company whose businessmodel is advertising, or engagement-based advertising, meaning they care about the amountof time someone spends on the product, they make more money the more time people spend. so, the game becomes, how can i throw differentpersuasive techniques to get people to stay, to spend as long as possible, and to comeback tomorrow? cat wise: and it's clearly working. today, wherever we go, we're inevitably surroundedby fellow citizens staring into their phones, as we usually are too.

what do you think about when you're out inpublic and see people on their cell phones? tristan harris: you know, have you ever beenin a moment where you're sitting there, and you just start using your phone to do somethingproductive? maybe you're in the back of a car, a taxi,or you're on public transportation. your phone is always giving you a way to spendtime that can be more productive, more entertaining, or more stimulating than reality. i often say that this puts a new choice onlife's menu that's sweeter than reality. and so we're turning to it more and more often. we check our phones about 150 times a day.

cat wise: and what are the costs of that sortof constant interaction with technology, both on an individual level and as a society? tristan harris: well, i think each of us haveto tune in for our own experience. what does it feel like when we check our phones150 times a day? or what does it feel like if we have beenscrolling, and had our face down, and not breathing very much when we're scrolling for,say, 20 minutes? and how do we feel on the inside? cat wise: how do you feel on the inside? tristan harris: i feel like i don't feel verygood after that.

i feel like my anxiety goes up. i feel more concerned about what i'm missing,what i'm missing out on, who i haven't gotten back to. oh, people think i'm bad at getting back tothem. all of this sort of psychology emerges allbecause of this one thing in my pocket. and we have never had a media device thatliterally a billion people are kind of being programmed in the same way, where so muchinfluence is in the hands of a few technology designers. cat wise: at google, harris was a so-calledproduct philosopher and helped design the

gmail inbox app. tristan harris: first of all, there was noone in the gmail team who said, how can we addict people to e-mail? there was no one who said that. that was never a goal. but you did hear conversations like, shouldwe make it buzz your phone every single time you get an e-mail? it was a design question. but the outcome of that one choice would bea billion people getting buzzed at dinners

with their dates, and with their friends,and with their family. all of these billions of phones, by the productof this one choice, would be affected and interrupted all the time. cat wise: and that was a conversation thatyou weren't having? tristan harris: i was getting a little bitdisenchanted with whether or not we were having, i thought, the bigger conversation about whene-mail or any product that we make actually makes a positive impact on people's lives. and i made kind of a slide deck manifesto,and it basically said, never before in history have 50, mostly male, 20-to-35-year-old designers,living in california, working at three tech

companies, influenced how a billion peoplespend their time. cat wise: this is coffee bar in san francisco,a popular hangout for high-powered techies like harris, the ones whose choices can influenceso many. this idea of missing something, i think thatdrives a lot of us. tristan harris: tony robbins has a great quote. he says: i run eight companies, and i havethousands of employees. what do you think the chances are that, atany given moment, if i check my e-mail, something has gone wrong? cat wise: with his organization, time wellspent, harris is urging peers in the tech

world to have new conversations about thebest interests of consumers. tristan harris: we need to change the incentive. i mean, i think, so long as the business modelof technology companies is advertising, we are going to have a problem. and that's what we're trying to do with timewell spent, is to change the conversation from being about maximizing engagement andtime, to being about maximizing net positive improvements to people's lives. cat wise: what are some examples of, you know,apps that people use on a pretty regular basis, and the ways that these companies are drawingus in?

tristan harris: have you noticed, if you everlog into twitter, as an example, so there's an extra delay that you don't know how longit's going to take, between two and three seconds, where that -- the number of new notificationson twitter you have? so, why is that there? well, it makes that into -- it's called avariable schedule reward. it's like a slot machine. so you're playing the slot machine, and there'sa time delay. and you're -- in that time delay, your anticipationis building, and then you get to see how many notifications i get.

and so you become more addicted to checkingit again the next time. cat wise: it sounds like there's just a lotof sort of trickery going on here. tristan harris: i call it the race to thebottom of the brain stem, to get people's attention at all costs. let's say i'm youtube, and i have got a certainamount of people's attention. what's youtube's biggest competitor? probably facebook. or take -- the ceo of netflix recently saidthat the biggest competitors to netflix are probably youtube, facebook, and sleep, meaning...

cat wise: sleep? tristan harris: sleep, because, at the endof the day, there's a finite amount of time people have. and if you're not getting people's time, someoneelse, some other app, or some other part of someone's life is going to get it. so these services are in competition withwhere we would want to spend our time, whether that's our sleep or with our friends. there's this war going on to get as much attentionas possible. cat wise: tristan, tell me about how you useyour phone.

tristan harris: well, i mean, i try to useit as consciously as i can. one thing, for example, is, i set it up sothat i just have my in-and-out tools and my aspirational ways i want to spend my timeon my home screen. cat wise: what do you mean by in-and-out tools? tristan harris: a tool is something that youuse and you never use it longer or more than you want to, for example, google maps. like, if i need directions, i don't end upscrolling through google maps for half-an-hour randomly, right? i just go in, and i find where i need to go,and then i go out.

cat wise: and these are things that reallydon't draw you in for long periods of time? tristan harris: there's nothing on my homescreen that is -- explicitly makes money from or wants to maximize how much time i spendon it. and i put all those other things inside offolders that are hidden. cat wise: are people still texting you, orare sort of your friends and colleagues, maybe they're not texting you or trying to reachout in a way that would distract you so often? tristan harris: at the end of the day, thething that dictates what -- how someone reaches out to you, and whether they use facebookmessenger or whatsapp or imessage, isn't because they're thinking deeply about it.

it's because it's just the fastest and easiestthing to reach for. and so i think we have to recognize that,as human beings, there's just a certain set of things we're vulnerable to that do influenceus. and if it buzzes right now, i would probably,without even thinking about it, with you here, check it. and so, if i don't want that to happen, ijust have to put it away. in fact, my phone just buzzed right now. tristan harris: and i just looked. there you go.

cat wise: even knowing what you know, youstill picked it up. tristan harris: and this is the thing, thateven the people in the world of persuasion we were talking about earlier, you know allabout these tricks of how to get people to use products and to use a slot machine dynamic,whatever it is. they will tell you that they themselves areno less vulnerable than the regular person, because these techniques work on everybody. it's just part of being human. miles o'brien: and that's the "newshour" fortonight. i'm miles o'brien.

judy woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again right here tomorrowevening. for all of us at the "pbs newshour," thankyou, and good night.

bar certified lawyer

you just went through a divorce, and you'renot happy with the way you were represented by your divorce attorney. hi, i'm robert todd,and i'm here to answer the question, how do i sue my divorce attorney? well, first ofall, if you believe that your attorney has committed malpractice, there are statutesavailable in all fifty states to allow you to sue for malpractice, but you're going tohave to find an attorney who will testify against your attorney and sometimes that'svery difficult to do. perhaps the better course of action is to consider reporting your divorceattorney to the state bar grievance committee. every state has a state bar grievance committee,and those grievance, those grievance committees are charged with the responsibility of overseeingand regulating all attorneys that practice

in your state. so, if your attorney has, infact, done something wrong, the grievance committee is going to determine whether thatis, in fact, the case and deal with it appropriately. i'm robert todd, and thank you for watching.

bar association

it wasn't all that long ago, just1999, that the term the internet of things was first coined. soon after that,lg announced its plans to release the first connected refrigerator which wasprogrammed to sense and keep track of the groceries stored inside. now, whilewe're at a relatively early stage in the development of the internet of things we'vecertainly seen it grow by leaps and bounds. and the numbers confirm thepopularity of iot devices. i'm sure that you've been hearing a lot of facts andfigures over the last couple of days but tech-researcher gartnerreports that 6.4 billion connected things will be used worldwide this yearup 30% from 2015, and by 2020 that number

will exceed twenty billion. now to put itmore starkly in 2016 alone 5.5 million new devices will be connected everysingle day. and as new iot devices continue to hit the market they continue toincrease in sophistication. smart technologies no longer simply countsteps or allow consumers to turn off their home lights remotely. iotdevices now have the ability to predict and prevent problems from just aboutanywhere. for example, connected cars can now notify drivers of dangerous roadconditions and offer real-time diagnostics to drivers and servicefacilities. and companies in the oil industry have started to implement smarttechnologies that can detect issues such

as a corroded pipe line or leaks, andimmediately address them before any accidents happen. and it's only a matterof time before your house will know that you're coming home because it'sconnected to a sensor in your car or your smartphone. but, like its potential benefits thepotential risks from the internet of things also emerged at a breakneck pace. last year researchers warned that we would soon start to hear about smarthome hacking and sure enough several studies have shown that it only takesbetween 5 and 20 minutes to find a way to compromise home automation devices. even more worrying, researchers have also

shown they're able to hack remotelyinto various medical connected devices such as insulin pumps and change theirsettings so that they no longer to deliver medicine. this is our new reality.we've now seen attackers infect connected medical devices with malwareand ransomware at hospitals, and they have exploited connected medical devicesto obtain medical data which is now considered ten times more valuable thana credit card number. incidents like these risk the erosion of consumer trust-a key issue that's facing the continued growth of the internet of things. a 2015survey conducted by trustee found that 79 percent of consumers are concernedabout smart devices collecting their

data, and 25% mentioned concerned aboutthe security and privacy of the data collected as the primary reason why theydid not currently own a smart device. so, how can we enjoy the enormous benefits thatthe internet of things can offer while at the same time addressing potential risks toconsumer privacy safety and security? how do we avoid waking up one day in thenot too distant future living in a world like the one wired magazine writer, mat honan, humorouslydescribes in his essay, the nightmare on connected home street," where our homesbecome infected with malware causing everything in them to go haywire, leadingto loss not only control over control

over almost everything in our homebut also the most basic semblance of privacy. in my view, we need to do a muchbetter job of navigating the evolving iot landscape in a way that both addressesour desire for convenience, efficiency and innovation; but, at the same timesafeguards the most personal aspects of our lives. before getting to a fewthoughts about how we might go about doing that, i'd first like to spend a fewminutes addressing what i see as the key risksthat are presented by the internet of things. and then, i'll suggest some stepsthat i think the iot industry can take to address these risks and enhance consumerprivacy and security,

thereby building consumer trust in theinternet of things. the ever-increasing collection of data and the growingsophistication of the tools to analyze that data present one of the centralrisks emanating from the internet of things. today we're bringing iot devicesinto our homes, our cars, our workplaces and with the proliferation of wearableswe are increasingly placing them on our bodies. in other words, we're placing them and bringingnew sources of data collection into what used to be intimate spaces and we'reeffectively allowing companies to digitally monitor or otherwise private

activities. the sheer volume of data thateven a small number of devices can generate is absolutely stunning. for example,fewer than 10,000 households using an iot home automation system can generatea hundred and fifty million discrete data points per day. a recent report by abi researchestimates that in the aggregate the volume of data captured by the internetof things will exceed one point six zettabytes by by 2020. a zettabyte is equivelant to about two hundred andfifty billion dvds. all of these independent data points when patchtogether percent deeply personal and startlingly complete picture of each ofus -one that includes details about your

financial circumstances, our health, ourreligious preferences, and our family and friends. and the collection of thispersonal information only to a host of other sensitive inferences, including ourmood, stress levels, personality type demographics, well-being, sleep patterns,level of fitness... to name just a few. this pervasive collection leads to thenext inevitable question and another key risk that presented by the internet ofthings: what is happening to the iot generated data? and how is it be used? asan initial matter, the gathered by iot sensors and systems can pass through anynumber of hands beyond those of the user that generated thedata: the company whose hardware collects it,

the software business that processes it, andthe app maker that provides functionality. not only might they be collecting data to extendwell beyond what is needed to provide a particular service they may very wellalso be sharing it with a multitude of unknown parties. and all those withaccess can perform analyses that would not be possible with less rich data sets; providing the ability to make additionalsensitive inferences and compile even more detailed profiles of consumerbehavior. let me give you a concreteexample: in 2014, the ftc studied 12 health-related mobile apps to determinewhether they were transmitting personal

information to third parties and if sowhat kind of information they were transmitting and to whom. we found thatthese apps transmitted sensitive health conditions, such as information about pregnancy andovulation, along with consumers names email addresses and other unique andpersistent identifiers to third parties, including ad networks and analytics firns. in the absence of appropriate controls over this kind of informationour research demonstrates that companies will continue to collect and infersensitive data from consumers often without their knowledge.

today, a consumer may use a fitness trackersolely for wellness related purposes, but the data gathered by the device could beused to price health or life insurance or to infer the user's suitability for creditfor employment. some of these concerns are ones that weaddressed recently in our big data report. all of this is particularlyproblematic if these uses occur without consumer's knowledge or consent withoutensuring the accuracy of the data, or outside of the context in which theinformation was provided. there are also a number of other unexpected ways inwhich iot technologies might be used that

could infringe on consumer's privacy.recent news reports show that a whole host of iot devices including babymonitors and other household video cameras, smart tvs, toys, and cars, can beused for identification surveillance monitoring and location tracking. inlight of various studies showing that consumers are deeply concerned about iot's data collection, disclosure of sensitive information, and their lack ofcontrol and awareness of who has access to the data that'scollected, it's particularly important for iot manufacturers to design devicesthat take into consideration unexpected uses of their iot data and the potentialfor misuse. another key issue relates

the heightened security risks presentedby the internet of things. security research in this area could be moreacute because of the lack of economic incentives to provide reasonablesecurity. the increased vulnerability from internet connectivity and use ofshared networks and the potential impact on consumer's physical safety. many iotdevices are small low-cost and essentially disposable, and companies maynot view it as cost-effective to update software, apply a patch, or provide otherongoing consumer support for existing devices, focusing instead on new productdevelopment or other opportunities for business growth.

moreover, the small size and limitedprocessing power of many connected devices can inhibit encryption and other robust securitymeasures. second, there are a number of security risks that result fromincreased connectivity between iot devices and the internet. one risk is that attackers can exploitiot devices by accessing and misusing consumer's personal information collectedand transmitted to or from these devices. let's take fitness trackers as anexample. a recent study by canadian nonprofit called, open effect, found that7 of 8 fitness tracking devices transmitted

a persistent unique bluetooth identifierallowing them to be tracked by beacons that are increasingly being used byretail stores and shopping malls to recognize and profile their customers. this study also found that companion apps for these fitness devices leaked login credentials and transmittedactivity tracking information in a way that allows unscrupulous actors tointercept or tamper with them. as consumers use smart devices moreregularly intruders may exploit these vulnerabilities to facilitate a defector other types of fraud. related concerns that vulnerabilities on a single device canfacilitate attacks on other systems. for

instance, recent news reports also showhow hackers gained access to 900 internet-connected closed circuit tvcameras and used those cameras to perform a denial of service attack on a company. denial of service attacks are more pernicious when the attacker has moredevices under his or her control, and as iot devices proliferate these types ofattacks may become more common. as another example just last month the ftc settledcharges with computer hardware maker asustek that critical security flaws inits routers put the home networks of hundreds of thousands of consumers at risk. specifically, we allege that the router's

insecure cloud services led to thecompromise of thousands of consumer's connected storage devices exposing theirsensitive personal information on the internet. as iot devices connecting tohome networks increase, the harm from insecurity router security will only continue toescalate. finally, security vulnerabilities can have a significantimpact on our personal and physical safety. by exploiting vulnerabilitiesin iot devices, attackers may well be able to open garage and other doorsacross the whole country, switch off critical medical devices, or set millions of ovens onfull heat, causing some to catch fire. last month in the uk a temporary glitchat british gas resulted in smart

thermostats raising the temperature ofconsumer's homes to 90 degrees fahrenheit. as these examples show, as the use of theinternet of things becomes more widespread unfortunately so do therisks. at the ftc we're continuing to examine these and related risks in thecontext of the internet of things and related arenas; in fact, today we justannounced a series of workshops that the fcc will be holding in the fall toexamine protection implications of ransomware, drones, and smart tvs. nowhaving spent some time discussing what i see to be the principal risks presentedby the internet of things let me now turn to what i think the iot industry can do to address them. first, i

firmly believe that companies shouldfollow the principle of data minimization. while i recognize the valueof some data might lie in in an unanticipated uses these interests canand should be balanced with the interest in limiting to privacy and data securityrisks to consumers. companies should examine their data practices in businessneeds and develop policies and practices that weigh the potential benefits againstthe potential harms. so, what might this kind of exercise look like? companiesshould be asking questions at the front end about what types of data they're collecting, andto one end and for how long they anticipate keeping it. they should also weighthe potential usefulness of particular

data against its sensitivity andconsider making alternative choices for instance a company might choose to collect zip codes rather than precise geolocation after considering the risks. and when companies make a determination about what data they need to collectthey should consider what controls are in place to mitigate potential harms.as part of his analysis company should ask questions like, "can the data be maintained in the identified form?" "can access to the data be limited?" "is there a process forvetting new or innovative uses of the data to determine whether they may leadto adverse consequences for consumers before engaging in them?" through thiskind of an approach company can minimize

its data collection, take steps to address risks to the datait chooses to collect and maintain, and still promote its business goals. ultimately, companies should keep in mind that just as collecting and retainingdata may bring an anticipated benefits it might also bring unanticipated harms.second, companies should give consumers clear notice and provide simplifiedchoices for unexpected collection or uses of their data. consumers know forexample that is smart thermostat is gathering information about their heatinghabits and a fitness band is gathering data about their physical activity. but wouldthey know and expect this information to

be shared with data brokers or marketing firms? probably not. in these and similar casesconsumers should be given clear and simple notice of the proposed uses oftheir data and a way to give consent. now, i recognize that providing simplifiednotice and choice in an iot world where devices often lack a consumerinterface is easier said than done. and we risk inundating consumers with toomany choices as connected devices and services periphery. but in my mind thequestion is not whether consumers should be given a say over unexpected uses oftheir data but rather how to provide consumers with control over theirpersonal information. whatever approach

a company decides to take to providechoice -whether it's at the point of sale, during setup and installation, or anotherway, they should ensure the privacy choices are clear and prominent and notburied within lengthy privacy notices. it's also important that companies aim toprovide just-in-time choices in which they can convey important information toconsumers and allow them to exercise choice at the time of data collection,sharing, or use. there are promising ideas that may help companies provideconsumers with more control. at carnegie mellon sci lab for example, they're developingpersonalized privacy assistance that are capable of learning the privacypreferences of their users over time.

semi-automatically configuring manysettings and making privacy decisions on their behalf imagine having a privacy assistant thatis running on your smartphone or your smart watch. the privacy assistantlistens for sensors that are broadcasting their privacy policies andcan make determinations on your behalf. if it knows for instance that you don'tmind sharing your home's temperature settings it can make that decision foryou. or, you can prompt you to make decisions. if it realizes that yourthermostat is sharing your email address with an ad network you can ask you todecide whether you are comfortable with

this kind of sharing. clearly, there's morework to be done in these areas but i'm confident that the same ingenuitydesigned acumen and technical know-how that is bringing us the internet ofthings can also provide innovative ways to give consumers easy-to-understandchoices. finally, companies should prioritize security and build it intotheir devices from the outset. companies should conduct a privacy or securityrisk assessment as part of the design process. they should test security measures beforeproducts launch. use smart default by requiring consumers to change defaultpasswords in the setup process. they should

consider encryption particularly for thestorage and transmission of sensitive information such as health data, and theyshould monitor products throughout their lifecycle and to the extent possiblepatch known vulnerabilities. in addition, companies should implement technical andadministrative measures to ensure reasonable security includingdesignating people responsible for security in the organization, conductingsecurity training for employees, and taking steps to ensure service productproviders also protect consumer data. so, let me just close with a final thought: the internet of things is clearly still in its early stages but it's growing much more rapidly than manyimagined. iot devices and systems are

becoming more integrated into importantareas of our lives and transforming the way that we interact with technology. and,while the internet of things can provide enormous benefits to consumers in a widearray of arenas, the risks iot devices pose to consumers privacy safety andsecurity has also been significantly magnified. if we want to instill consumerconfidence in the internet of things and ensure that we don't end up anywherenear the futuristic dark scenario that matt honan set out in his wired magazine essay,companies need to develop and implement innovative approaches to protectingconsumers' privacy and security, and they need to do that now. in my view, it's onlywith protections that are mindful of

privacy and security that the internet ofthings will maximize its potential in our daily lives and across our economy. thank you very much.