fair point. mr. jackson or miss polaro, i don't know who will respond but feel free. >> i'll respond. alex jackson on behalf of mr. spacey. >> sure. >> your honor, i don't believe we need to talk about the scope. that is in terms of a subpoena. what i subpoena or serve on those individuals might require discussion or litigation by the scope. all i'm asking -- all i'm asking is this is data that we believe not only potentially exculpatory but likely exculpatory and i don't want to see that data deleted or destroyed inadvertently or manipulated. i don't think it is a burden at all on the commonwealth nor on the two individuals named in the motion indeed and the complaining witness to simply say i'm ordering you not to destroy anything. so that mr. jackson, miss polaro, the commonwealth can litigate in front of the court at some point whether or not there is exculpatory information that leads up to today. in other words, all i'm asking for is to put a bubble around that data so it doesn't get destroyed. i'm not saying i get it yet. i just don't want it destroyed

ordering you not to destroy anything. so that mr. jackson, miss polaro, the commonwealth can litigate in front of the court at some point whether or not there is exculpatory information that leads up to today. in other words, all i'm asking for is to put a bubble around that data so it doesn't get destroyed. i'm not saying i get it yet. i just don't want it destroyed yet. >> well, further response? >> we can only control, judge, at this point what is in the care and custody and control of the commonwealth. >> right. >> as far as information contained within the specific service providers of these individual cell phone carriers, that is different. we have no control over that, judge. we would suggest as far as the preservation goes, to the individuals directly or to the providers, that it be limited at this point to the 7th and 8th until more information could be provided as to why it might likely be exculpatory versus a phishing expedition. >> i haven't seen any of the police reports so i don't know what -- except for the affidavit, i don't know what information that you base this reques

polaros oition, really there is no due process if you are arrested with the aid of this science fiction nightmare. cops don't have to tell you that a corporate scanner conveniently matched your mug with a crime. it's too easy to punish innocent with this, and the burden of proving your innocence will be costly and painful. i don't care if joy behar and -- [inaudible] find the means to end this new form of unconstitutional probery. we have to talk about it and make sure a new surveillance tool isn't weapon niced by the corrupt and lazy in the name of doing good, and that's the memo. ♪ kennedy: now usually when there is bipartisan agreement on something, it is either to spend money or start a war, which is also very costly. so should we be surprised the democrats and republicans agree on not turning america into an orwellian dystopia? here with me tonight, fox business network's very own titan of liberty, john stossel is back. hi, welcome back. >> thank you. kennedy: so what is most problematic for you about this facial recognition technology? >> well, from what you say, the possibility