from time to time to side with a little smaller state is doing they don't like. i don't like this person with a minute don't like the human rights record or they don't like their seeming to be threatening. in any case, they decide, no, you should move your country. we should topple you can make you to be a different kind of country. so now i am the leader of a smaller, weaker country. don't nuclear weapons for quake a security blanket for an equalizer that might lead you back to attack me, to put a point on it. imagine saddam hussein and that in the their arsenal. would the u.s. have attacked them on top of them in 2003?

and the question at least being followed by someone like kim jong il in korea and they might have moved in tehran. so without nuclear weapons, i can come in and destroy you in your regime. are you going to be happy to be without that because i said i'm pursuing nuclear weapons? >> i'll comment on that. i'll make a factual point. we do live in such a world right now. in other words, we have countries that not only have nuclear conventional superiority, but also of nuclear weapons. and yet, as a factual matter, there are 184 you think it is now countries in the world that nonetheless agreed not to upset those advantages beginning a nuclear capability under the

nuclear non-proliferation treaty. soever they figure, this problem as a factual matter doesn't seem to be a very great one. so yes there certainly would be a handful of countries that would be thinking and the way of little countries, north korea and iran come immediately to mind that would be thinking in the way you suggest, but she got to work out some security arrangement with them, where you would agree not to attack them. >> and around has committed to a weapons of mass destruction free larger middle east zone. it has committed to that. in various high fellows have come out that these are weapons of genocide. they are taboo in islam. and it's back to the point that you're making before that if you have an international forum that is committed to by the nuclear state and you are moving towards zero and a proportionate and equitable if he will fashion,

then you will be able to mobilize what is not possible now much more likely an international consensus to target anyone who breaks out or resist joining what has become an international norm i need everyone to the same obligations. so i think that that is part of what another asset to the process is. right now you cannot galvanize international -- international consensus on those states that are potential of the freighters because there are these double standards at play and there is no international consensus. but he said i think 187 states possibly. and our states would've given up their nuclear weapons programs such as south africa who had an established nuclear weapons, which has proven it can be done.

there are states in latin america who are on their way and could have and not together and agreed to pull back and to commit to a weapons cache a nuclear free zone in latin america. if only india and pakistan might see their way to that. but there are examples. >> just to underline because for people who don't follow as a technical matter, when i give my quiz for students, how many states had nuclear weapons? one for sure made six. as south africa. in other states, ukraine, belarus when they disappeared and those of all been zeroed out. so this is not an inconceivable thing. the second point you make which

is also an extremely important part, how many states have started down the path seriously to nuclear weapons and stopped before they got there or back up? and the answer is twice as many as two finally nuclear weapons. and those include or so, but also sweet and into italy. so quite a number of states. again, it's not inconceivable. >> the smart states. >> amico to questions from the audience. so what i'm going to do with simply read the question and then we'll see who wants to answer. given broad assets of public support for new start, it appears that the primary motivation of opposing republican senators is a lack of political costs. how would you suggest enhancing public awareness to ensure

senators are conscious of the political costs and therefore respond to this public interest? >> and the lame duck session? >> yes. [laughter] >> that's for you. [laughter] >> that's for you actually. you are the american. >> maybe grandma compromise. >> i never wanted to be a politician. >> i was at a session last night at the kennedy school we had. the title of it was strange bedfellows. this was our form event. it was jeb bush who was the governor of florida from 1998 to 2000 -- >> eight, nine, recently -- >> who has been a fellow. michelle reid, was a kennedy school graduate, who was the

chancellor of the d.c. school system, who lost her job when her past lost his job over this type that they were making such serious progress in education in d.c. margaret spelling, who is a fellow at the school at the iop, who was bush 43's secretary of education. and john podesta who was clinton's chief of staff and was very interested in education. and somebody asked them, you know, in the education arena, how is it that somehow or another the state like florida, who under jeb bush went from being, i don't know, close to the bottom in terms of performance in high schools and

the grades rose came to be in the top and every year has been getting better and didn't get much credit for it. or similarly in the d.c. case, in two years, they have changed things just usually, dramatic lee, but didn't get a lot of public credit for. and the argument when michelle reid, started lying. she said well, how are you going to get the politicians now to act on this basis? particularly since it's not one more sensible republicans and sensible democrats have a difference of view. this is handled with about 90% to be agreed among themselves. michelle lee said on the one hand you have do-gooders from the kennedy school who have good

arguments and go to senator johnson say here are the seven good arguments why you should do this in the public interest. and on the other hand, and work in a script comes and says we will give you money and workers for your campaign. which one does the senator follow? so i would say that the question. >> it is a question. it's why we produce the film. it's by meetings like this are important. one of our coordinators at the history channel, countdown to zero is also going to get the message out. what you do in this narrow time frame of the lame duck session i don't know, except i think there's a lot that can be done. and it needs people like both of you and others who are expert justified washington, i think, and just make this argument and the airwaves because this is an issue that i don't think has yet

been decided, that there is tending to be a kind of pessimism about whether or not the senate will pass this treaty or whether or not they'll bring it -- be able to bring it up the votes that are necessary. on the other hand, there are those that feel there is the possibility there because the u.s. military leadership support this. as you mentioned on the political leaders of both parties. there is no logical reason at all. and there's every reason for supporting this treaty. so it will be just that worst side of american politics if it doesn't come up and be voted on. >> are coming from michelle's point, if i were senator -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> if i were senator and i thought by not voting for something that the great majority of my constituents

wouldn't, this would be -- i would be in jeopardy. i think this would impact me. i think there may be something more concrete that citizens can do in terms of community and their view that this is an extremely important issue about which the national security established is virtually unanimous. it's not like there's a strong regiment on the substantive ground. so for this to get stuck into politics. >> if there were an nra for this issue, s.t.a.r.t. treaty would've been passed months ago. >> well, global zero -- >> did anyone talk to stuart last night? she did something -- she was taking the mickey out of fox news and there are attacks on

george starr is any broadband rupert murdoch and had chopped for it and on the puppet and all the paraphernalia with glenn beck targeting george soros. so it came to mind as we were talking because the accusations are that are there are these puppet masters to have resources and media control better able to do exactly what we're attacking about. but i would imagine -- i know there are a great many people who are really committed to this. but it going to be a very complex process, but i don't think we should give up. i would ask our audience, anyone of you that could have any impact on any group or individual or political decision-maker to please engage because one person -- we were talking earlier about the assassination of prime minister ravine before we came out on

stage and the impact one person can have for the last one person. i would bet money has been to the mix as well could add on the direction from which critical events go that have an impact -- can have an impact for generations. and i would say that everyone of you in this audience should consider themselves -- you know, assume the responsibility that president kennedy advocated so beautifully. ask what you can do because everyone can do something and sometimes it can be the thing that tips the -- what is that? >> the balance. >> tips the balance. >> another from the audience. the question i was being discussed is fear. each country fears to be the first to get rid of its nuclear

weapons because of the lack of trust that the other countries will follow suit. doesn't the u.s., by refusing to ratify the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty reinforced that fear? >> yeah. [laughter] >> maybe i should make that the shortest answer of the evening. >> it reinforces all the worst aspects of the political system, of a country that should be a leader in the world, and plays to the worst force us, the most dangerous forces at play in this larger issue. >> if you remember, and i know i

have to remind myself every now and then with a nuclear weapon really is and what these things can do. if you are called, there is no city on earth on earth that can't be leveled a nuclear weapon. if all the people killed, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people killed and casualty, if you introduce such an instrument into the relationship between countries, then you have a cycle to elaborate a little, such as the good for nothing else. and so i think the question is a very deep one. and we are in the grip of fear. and i think that does go a long way to explaining why we can't dig ourselves out because the very fact of these horrible, horrible instruments -- they are very present, even when they're not thinking about it, even when the public is indifferent, we kind of know that we're under the mushroom cloud and it seems

to be independent even though political quarrel. it seems the political quarrel can, go do not fear persists in causes that you should clutch onto her nuclear weapons. >> is this a question of fear with new start for a fear of domestic politics as it is a question in a number of other nuclear states? which is that? are the senators afraid? do they not have access to all the rational arguments that are being made at a military? >> they play to fear. but this is domestic politics and lack of statesmanship. this is traditionally a bipartisan issue. >> is something as a matter simply of domestic politics and if the citizens who are required to vote for me have a very strong view and expressing -- >> our job is to make a strong

point of view. it's not yet passionate. that's the problem. there should be much more passion out there about this issue. >> here's a question about nuclear terrorism. it's an interesting angle. the questions as a main obstacle to eliminating the threat of nuclear terrorism is stopping the smuggling of nuclear materials. all of the disruptions of smuggling have essentially been like with the larsson who is the chief intelligence suture in every arsenal and has been intercepted and would not of been reported missing. every case. so what can the international

community do to address this issue? if we can't stop smuggling marijuana from mexico, what can we do to improve the likelihood that we would stop nuclear smuggling? >> drain the swamps. the mac since you've written a whole book on this are reluctant to turn it over to you, but i think you should answer. >> my short answer would be is that the likelihood of a country like the u.s., as open as they are come preventing terrorists smuggling a nuclear bomb successfully to an american city. if tears could a nuclear bomb is pretty low. and we should work hard and it's good to have higher fences, more complications. but if we know for sure that drugs come to our cities, we know for sure that people coming weakly into the country, all of

the trails along with sharks come to a city are the same trails which could be used in bringing a nuclear bomb to a city. so as sam then likes to say, every mile away from the source is easier for the terrorists and harder for the defenders. so the point is that the source of our nuclear weapons, all nuclear materials should be locked down to a cold dander, which was the purpose of this nuclear security summit. if you're also eliminated so that there were no nuclear materials, then there would be no nuclear terrorism. >> that's another proponent by the way of global zero and other plants, which is we haven't talked about the internationalizing the feel cycle, so that we don't have nuclear materials spread as widely as we would have nuclear

power facilities in the world. but you have an internationalization of that critical feel cycle, which again is an extra level of safeguard. >> yeah, the path to a nuclear weapon is coming to create exactly parallels the thought of the terrorist of nuclear weapons. >> i think that if one in the metaphors i think yes sam nunn has a good metaphor in which he says, for those who find the idea of the world of nuclear weapons dealt a little far-fetched, then i would say that includes me. i'm a doubting thomas supporter. so he says well, let me explain to you how you can think about it. and i like this metaphor a lot. and he uses it as a way to help audiences understand.

so the zero is like the top of a mountain. and from the valley, where we are now commencing the top of the mountain is pretty hazy. you're going to get up. there is cloud and there's various mountain ranges. so it's quite a stretch. do you have an ati which the direction is. and so the task is to start looking your way up to the base camp. so the base camp against you from where you are now to for example all nuclear weapons and materials that exist, locked up as good as gold is not the end of the journey. if you fail to get their, so after a nuclear bomb is thrown off into the cities, you're going to be in a world that is so chaotic, hard to tell wherever. so the proposition is we have the almost unanimous for people

to try to work the security side of issues concept of where we need to be going, which is a stretch. and when you get to a base camp, as you do when you're climbing mountains, all of a sudden you look up and think wow, look at that. there is a peek at there that i couldn't see very clearly from lower. here's another question for the audience. it says, who profits from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. >> good question. very good question. >> what about the corporations or individuals who profit -- we were chatting a little bit about that earlier. so what about that? >> you know, all weapon systems have profits attached and corporations that make those profits. and there's no countervailing

for those pressures will prevail. it's kind of business as usual. but these are not unbeatable pressures. and in fact, we've seen that the united states and russia actually have been cut by more than a house since the height of the cold war, since they're height of the cold war. and so, as far as financial pressures are concerned, that shows you, that alone shows you the east can be defeated by political will -- with local well. >> i like that answer. >> earlier we were chatting a little bit about mr. a.q. khan, who was the father of the nuclear bomb, but then who in the deadline from mohammed

valverde set up the wall might have nuclear proliferation. so here's the fellow who both the pakistani nuclear bomb program, built nuclear bombs, is a hero in pakistan, who simultaneously was the world's first nuclear book a tear, so i nuclear weapons and materials and fires everywhere. so to libya, to north korea, not infrequent visitor to saudi. when you look at his travels itinerary, quite remarkable. he amassed a substantial fortune for himself. i think he has 17 palatial houses in various parts of the world at the time he was finally apprehended. so what about that? >> why was he here in pakistan? because the united states --

some would say because the united states is not sure in card technology with russia in the 1940s and then come to a mutual agreement not to use it. but that's a moot point. but the united states and russia started along the trail. and china felt that it had -- i don't know that china came before france and great britain, but they were slightly after. and china entered for obvious reasons. i mean, you can understand they felt that they better be a nuclear power and the other powers that were felt this was necessary for their community. india felt that china held the weapon it needed to acquire the weapons because of the long-standing tensions between india and china. and in pakistan in 1974 decided if india has the weapon, then we get the weapon.

that is why he's a hero in pakistan. because for the pakistanis, the weapon became an iconic symbol of national pride and an instrument of security of defensive security so to speak. and that is how they arrived at the crazy point. but that's my answer to the question. >> i think that's a good answer. and i think unfortunately that's a dynamic -- another dynamic issue that's got to be taken into account. but unfortunately, it's my responsibility as the moderator to say that we've come to the witching hour. so that the not try to summarize, but simply to say this film, count down to zero, this group strongly agrees as a good introduction to the topic for those that want to go a little further. andy will be on the dvd. >> on november 23rd.

and these two gentlemen have written extraordinary books about the subject, that are also, like the film -- >> i'm happy to sell this as well. there will be actually a discussion of this with highlights of the film done at the kennedy school for a on december 1st. and valerie plane come in the former cia agent who was part of -- who suited the moderator think will be there for discussion. i would say spring for the price of the dvd. if you don't want to come to the kennedy school on the first of december. but on behalf of the library and the audience, i want to say what an honor spent to be part of a panel with queen noor and how much we admire her taking time, energy and imagination devoted

to this topic and being part of the panels. thank you very much. [applause] >> tonight, a discussion on teens and mobile safety issues.

>> next come a discussion on teens and mobile safety issues such as texting while driving, cyberbullying and 16. some include sec to back their julius genachowski and high school students, educators and online safety advocates. this is hosted by the federal communications commission. it's about two hours. ..

we are the technology and hub for the district of columbia public schools and 21st century approach to teaching and learning for technology including biotechnology, engineering lead the way, information technology and media has paved the way for students to come to the highest performing students in the united states. if our children are to compete globally in this new age of technology, then our approach to education must change to meet these new challenges. here at mckinley, 95% of students go off to college every year and their increase and achievement are standardized tests over the last four years have been dramatic. this is not due to chance, but focus on developing rigorous and innovative technology curriculum

having a school of master teachers and focus on the aligning student learning to the demand of the global market. of course, i would be remiss if i didn't mention the of the number one students in the united states. [cheering] who are doing so well they are trying to get a just on for friday. and of course a wonderful base of support from our parents and partners in technology and business community. as we gather here today, i would like to take the opportunity to recognize a few of the important entities responsible for this tremendous event. first i want to thank the fcc for entrusting us to host such a vital symposium with regard to education technology and the innovation needed an education to move student achievement and to close the achievement gap once and for all. we have been fortunate enough to become connected with major industry leaders and secure partnerships as we move to work

providing students of the leading stem educational opportunities available in the united states to read our alliance with transforming technology and education contact remain to be seen in partnership with the armed forces communications and electronics association and its partners such as northrop grumman, lockheed martin, google, sri international just to name a few have allowed us to pursue the rigorous curriculum that permits students to achieve an elevated academic level and what continually becomes a more competitive global marketplace both professionally and academically. i'd like to thank the p tsa and all of our partners for having the school ready today as mckinley is a beacon of the hill that has always been that the academic community. i applaud president obama and chairman genachowski for recognizing the need to address technology and stem as a focus and educational reform. our leaders are at the forefront of the issues and must be

confronted to bring america's best to the highest performing country in the world of education. it is my pleasure to welcome the sec and chairman chilliest genachowski. jarman genachowski was nominated by president dhaka, agnes chairman of the federal communications commission march 3rd, to those of the mining and sworn into office on june 29, 2009. he has a distinguished pedigree that makes him superbly qualified to lead the fcc in the next generation of technology and what it has to offer the society. he received a j.d. from harvard law school with a distinguish of mad from commodity where he was the editor of the harvard law review. a prelude to that he completed studies for his b.a. at columbia college where he also graduated magna cum laude in. chairman genachowski has experience in the private sector. prior to his of wind that he spent more than ten years working in the technology industry as an executive and

entrepreneur. he co-founded the digital ventures where he served as the managing director and he was a special adviser at general atlantic. in these capacities he worked to start, accelerate and invest in early and mid stage technology in other companies. from 1997 to 2005, he was a senior executive at iacp, interactive with a fortune 500 company where his positions included chief of business operations and general counsel. chairman genachowski's public service rolls and would work for a previous sec chairmen in a legal capacity. he has previously served as the clerk for supreme court justice souter and brennan and at the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. chairman genachowski worked in congress for senator charles schumer of new york and on the staff of the house select committee investigating the iran contra. chairman genachowski has been active at the intersection of social responsibility and the

marketplace. he was a part of the founding group of new resource which specializes in serving the needs of the entrepreneurs and sustainable businesses in and serve on the advisory board of environmental entrepreneurs. he also served as a board member of common sense media, a leading a nonpartisan nonprofit organization seeking to improve the media lives of children and families. we are extremely as the venue for this event. we firmly believe in the technology leading the way for the education and the district of columbia and soon nationally and providing students with the appropriate to need to utilize technology and partner industry some of whom are represented here today that will serve their academic pursuits and provide them with the foundation to lead their peers into the new technologically savvy environment. ladies and gentlemen it is my pleasure to welcome to the school the chairman of the federal communications

commission, chairman genachowski [applause] >> thank you, david pinder for the introduction and for what you have done with this great school. thank you to all of your students out there who are making our jobs easy. [applause] [cheering] now, to all of you students i hope you will be gentler with me than your football team was in your last game. 42-nothing and you guys are a science and technical school. what's that? [applause] thank you all for coming out to

listen to someone from government and fcc talk a little bit, listen to this panel which is going to cover some really important topics. thank you to all of you participating remotely. we've got folks who are participating online from independence and beaverton oregon. it is three hours earlier there but if you can do the math it's a very early. think you for waking up and participating. we appreciate very much. think you to the panelists you will see how great they are a little bit later, to the parents and educators and experts who are going to come and make sure we have a terrific discussion on the important topic today. let me be brief in the intro and start by asking a few questions of the students who are here. first, how many of you are looking forward to winter break?

hirsh [cheering] how many of you are looking forward to the final you've got to take to get to winter break? [cheering] all right. now how many of you use the internet in connection with your finals were home work or school work? [laughter] all right. let the record show lots of hand is going up. how many of you think you will need basic digital scales to get a good job? everyone. one more. how many of you know that broadband means high-speed internet? that's great. not that long ago people didn't really understand what broadband

was, that is simply means high-speed internet. it's good to see all of you have this level of knowledge because broadband is the most transformational new technology since electricity. it's changing not only the way students do homework, not only the way people do their jobs but virtually every aspect of our lives. the opportunity of why you're and wireless are almost limitless. just imagine a student anywhere can have access to the best libraries, the best teachers, the best tutors in the world. in fact the last time i was here that mckinley, it was a number of years ago when there was something called mant de am i part submitted with a group that helped us during internet lawyers in mckinley in the late 1990's. it's amazing to be back here and see it now. but i don't know that we were

imagining them the opportunities of digital textbooks. how many of you are tired of carrying around big backpacks with 50 pounds of books? right? well why shouldn't every kid everywhere have a digital textbook with up-to-date materials, cutting its interactive tools, broadband enabled to help transform health care for the better. patients can have access to specialists even if the specialist doctor is on the other side of the country. smart phones can help people with say diabetes, it can track their glucose level, it can, the smart phones can real-time monitoring by their doctors improving health care lowering cost. how about energy? with a broadband, the appliances and our homes will be about to talk to each other saving energy, saving money, saving our

planet. the internet enables anyone anywhere to dream big and bring those streams to light. one thing we need to do to seize the opportunities of broadband is to preserve the freedom and openness of the internet. mark zuckerberg was only a few years older denney when he invented facebook and sergei was in his early 20s when he founded google. neither had to ask permission to launch the website and if any of you to follow your dreams online you shouldn't have to either. that's why the fcc is moving to preserve the open internet. it is a vital part of what we need to do to unleash a novation and protect free-speech, to foster broadband investment and promote a vibrant economy creating jobs for students like

you. and that's why it is essential we move forward next week to adopt the first enforceable rules of the road to protect internet freedom, and why i'm so pleased to have broad support for the effort from across the spectrum including a the technical community leading venture and other investors, carriers, labor and civil-rights organizations it's very important we do it. we need to make sure also that all of our young people, no matter where they are from, have access to the internet and digital skills necessary to be full participants in the economy and the 21st century economy. and we need to drive broadband adoption and access everywhere. high-speed access with everyone connected so that we can compete in the 21st century drive innovation and investment. for the country to be competitive in the new world we are looking to schools like this one, like mckinley who put

students with more than just the six skills. we need to lead the world and what people call, would you all know as the subject of science, technology, engineering, math president obama has made this a priority. the school is doing so much toward that goal. now i have another question for you. since i've started speaking, how many of you have checked your phone for texts or e-mails? come on. [laughter] all right. how many of you were tempted to check your phone? all right. here's the thing, as with every revolutionary new technology, broadband internet brings not only massive opportunities, but some concerns. one study found that the average

teenager consumes 11 hours of media content a day on multiple screens. another found that teenagers text so often it comes to a text of reef 14 minutes. we all understand, quote, below are a distraction in the words of a compelling reason "new york times" article that described the challenges of new technologies, and we also know how some texts or online messages can be hurtful. this all can have real consequences, consequences for schoolwork, consequences for friendships and relationships, consequences for careers, and consequences that literally can be life or death. 80% of field team in car accidents are caused by

destructive driving. that is a tragedy we have to tackle. i have a simple message for you. don't text and dr.. [applause] five got three kids. my oldest, the little ones are four and six and the oldest is 19. he's a driver. i want him to have access to the internet for thousands of reasons. i want him to have a mobile phone where ever he is. if he gets into an accident, has trouble i want him to be about to call me, call 911. i want all the benefits of that that can change the world for the better for my kids. but i don't want him textile and driving. these are just some of the issues the panelists will discuss in a few minutes. i am just so glad we are holding the forum today, so glad we are doing it here at mckinley. i am here today to learn from

students, parents, educators and experts on what we can do to seize the opportunities of winder and wireless broadband while avoiding the pitfalls. not about government regulation, it's about responsibility, it's about information and education, it's about empowerment, and powering students, and powering parents with resources and tools to navigate the digital age, and it's about providing a boost to innovators, to business innovators and social innovators developing new products, products and tools that can help parents and students with the challenges of having the limits, and also with identifying the good stuff that's out there, the quality digital content that can help make a positive difference for students and families.

so now, to kick off today's discussion, we are very lucky to have a special guest. she's right here in this computer. you can't see her but you will in a minute. she is any award when actress jane lynch, you know her from the hit show, "glee." give it up for "glee." [applause] [cheering] "glee" is just one of the many tv shows and films that jane lynch has made special. my own favorite is a film from a few years ago called the best in show. i am so pleased jane lynch is here and to report to all of you that just today the golden

globes nominated jane lynch for a big award. [applause] jane has been focused on these issues and before we bring her up life, let me ask that we play a public-service announcement that jane helped put together. >> hi, jane lynch. today i'm a model citizen but i used to be a model jerk. initially my bad habits caught up with me. the good folks put me to their text rehab

>> it means turn that toward mom. talk dirty to me, lies on your own papers. too dumb to mumble. pencils down.

[applause] >> so as you can see, jane lynch brings her wonderful trademark humor to the issue of responsible mobile usage through her involvement in the lg text ed program. as a role in the council's recycling issues like sexting and textile while driving and bullying what we will cover today. while the video was great, they're real thing is even better, and i am not delighted to welcome via skype -- [cheering] award winning actress and recovering text offender and the actress jane lynch. [applause] >> good morning, chairman genachowski tickets the toussuire and mckinley tech, how

is everybody doing today? [cheering] >> everyone can hear you. we are glad you participated. i know it's early in l.a.. we appreciate your ruling out of bed he. you look great for just having ruled out of bed. so we are here to talk about the opportunities and challenges around technology with parents and students and experts who just saw the video that you did with lt text ed. pretty entertaining with the serious business at the heart, right? >> that's true. one of the folks at lg asked me to be part of the text ed at basra counseling thought would be a great way to help parents and teens learn more about how we can be more responsible when it comes to mobile technology. now, the videos are funny i hope, and we have been able to laugh a little, but at the end of the day it's a very important issue and i'd like to see the fcc and everyone there so dedicated to having this conversation about mobile technology, the good and bad

behavior. now i don't know if you are aware of this, but teens on average send a text every 14 minutes. now that's more than 20,000 texts in the u.s. every second. in fact i did someone in the audience is text think right now to all of those in the audience, and you know that you are, listen closely. today i that you're going to learn something. and parents, parents out there, don't think that you are getting off easy. we know from our research that half of you are guilty of testing and driving. that's right, parents. they are on to you but we have to make sure you are doing everything you can to model good behavior. >> i couldn't agree more. we could all benefit from a little thinking and sharing about how technology particularly mobile technology is changing our lives every day. how did you decide to get involved in this in a lg text

ed? >> as a parent i inherited a 9-year-old daughter in marriage and these issues are important to me. being a parent is scary enough and when you have the technology to the next, that is something else. so when the opportunity came up at the advice and counsel and the part of sharing knowledge with parents and teens about the use of mobile technology [inaudible] we hope the videos are f3 [inaudible] we hope the videos are funny [inaudible] but issues like [inaudible] >> absolutely could not agree

more. >> so before i go, mr. chairman, i have a question for you and maybe we should devote from the audience. i hear you played basketball with of the president and you also didn't ret his mouth open like the other guys. can you get a round of applause if you think that the chairman could out to obama. [applause] [cheering] how many of you think that obama took the chairman on the court? [applause] that settles it. if the fcc thing doesn't work that you can come to the l.a. and see if the lakers need a point guard. >> you bet. [laughter] thank you for the confidence. i voted on the right side of that question. thanks again for joining us. it's been great talking to you. we admire your work as an actress and we admire your work in helping bring these issues to the attention of students and parents all over the country. congratulations on your

nomination today. good luck with "glee." we are huge fans and proceeded to participating. >> use your phones responsibly. [applause] >> well, that was great. now let me introduce a leading expert on generation mobile. amanda lenhart is a researcher at the american life project. she is here to present her findings on teens and mobile phones. amanda, thank you for coming. everyone, please welcome a amanda. [applause] >> i can't really think of

anything harder than trying to follow jane lynch, not to mention with a whole slide about data. so to try to make this little more interesting but i thought i would do is have my talk today be a little bit more of a conversation. and so, again, i'm sort of feeling page from the gerrans books i'm going to pose a bunch of questions to you and ask you about your cell phone use and mobile phone use and then we are going to see how mckinley tech folks matchup with the rest of the united states and teenagers here in the u.s.. so, first slide, please. how many of you actually have a cell phone? i would be shocked if any of you did not raise your hand. in the united states -- mcslarrow, please -- in the u.s., 75% of american teens have phones which seems kind of low, what you have to remember that we survey kids from 12 to 17, and so some of the 12-year-olds, some of the 13-year-olds don't yet have a phone.

but as you can see from the slide, the fact their parents, who are actually more likely to have phones than the teens -- next slide, please -- but there aren't a lot of differences in who has a foe in a. the only difference is that our operative or age, the young thirteens, middle schoolers -- are there in the middle schoolers here? their they are. of in the top. the middle schoolers are more likely to have phones than the high schoolers. also kids to come from lower income backrubs are less likely to have phones than kids that come from wealthier households. but overall, race and ethnicity and gender don't make any difference in whether or not you were likely to have a phone. next slide, please. what are people doing with phones? not surprisingly the text messaging and the text messaging, as you all know, a lot more and doing pretty much anything else, more than they are talking on the phone, talking on a land line, moreh

van der evin instant messaging, e-mail lenni, and all these other ways of communicating have remained flat over the past couple of years while text messaging you can see in the upper left corner is skyrocketing. next slide. i'm going to throw out some numbers, potential members of text messages you might send. how many sent less than 50 texts today? raise your hand. that's about about what i thought. how many of you sent less than 100 texas today? how many of you stand around 200 texts? [laughter] how many of you send more than 200 texts today? [laughter] next slide, please. as you can see, you all very much exceed the average american. so the median number come for those of you is 50 texts a day and that is from 12 to 17. but as you can see we represent

the mean and the median and what this tells us is that there is a bunch of people most likely the people in this room who are actually out fliers sending we more text messages a day. the average team since about 3,300 texts a month, so you guys are there and it sounds like exceeding that. next slide, please. so now we are going to go to the other side. how many of you don't need a single voice call in a typical day? how many of you make about two or three weeks calls in a typical day? how many of you make five voice calls on a typical day? ten? so, next slide, please. as you can see, actually, with twice calls it is remarkably standard across age groups, across genders. pretty much the average trust people, making and receiving about five calls a day and this includes somebody calling you and you calling someone else.

as you can see, there is another who pulled the numbers up as the mean present about ten or even, i'm sorry, make ten or even calls a day but there's a remarkable consistency around using the voice calling and actually adults said the same number -- make and receive the same number of voice calls as adolescents do. with text messaging we've got the 50 average or the median for teens, and for the adults it is ten. ..

>> you can see it's not just text message,ing voice calling, it's a computer in your pocket. it can serve as a communicative, and informational hub, allows you to record your experiences of your daily life and share it with people. you guys certainly exceed the statistical norm. 1/4 of teens send e-mail and surf the web on their phone. next slide. for some kids, this is much more important. for low income, kids who lives in households with the families, going online with the cell phone is the primary way. it's an increasingly important. as you can see, many of the kids don't have a computer, or if they do, it's not connected to the internet. the cell phone, actually for many, serves as a leapfrog.

instead of having to compete with access in the libry, they are able to get online much more easily. next slide, please. so i'm not going to survey you on this one. this is some of the negative things that happen to people with cell phones. certainly we see that about 1/2 of teens have gotten a spam text or unwanted text messages. certainly about 1/2 of the driving age has texted. 1/3 say they have been bullied or harassed via text messaging or calling. everybody's favorite sexting, sending nude or nearly nude images to somebody else. i'm not going to ask how many of you have done that. 15% say they received them, and 4% of teens say they've sent them.

next slide, please. how many of you would say your parents keep an eye on your phone use? raise your hand. very few, very few, all right. next slide please. so what this slide basically tells us is that parents are in theory paying attention to what their kids do online. the overarcking message here if you are female and 12 or 13, your parents are a lot more likely to be monitoring your phone use than if you are male or in high school. you can take that up with your parents when you get home if you have anything to say about that. it's also to say that parents have a lot of tools in their arsenal. some can set timeouts or what time of day and what places, some of them can limit the number of text messages. how many of you have had your parents take your phone away as

a punishment? yeah, it's a good one. parents are going to a lot. next slide please. this is another question. i don't actually know about the cell phone rule here at mckinley. what i can tell you, next slide please, most schools are -- allow kids to have cell phone at school but you can't have them in class. is that what it is here? there's another set of schools that are much more permissive that allow you to have a cell phone any time of day. that's 12%. there's a 1/4 of schools that are much, much more locked down than mckinley. you are not allowed to have a phone on campus at all. if you are caught with it, it's con iffiscated. 75% said the teens have their phone turn on. the darkest bar the are people

that have never done this. 36% of teens say they've sent a text message during class. i'm not going to ask you to raise your hands. 1/4 of teens say they have made a cell phone cold while in class. next slide please. then we decided to look and see whether it matters what kind of school that you went to. does it matter if your school is really permissive or if your school is really locking it down. the truth is it doesn't matter all that much. since 58% of teens who aren't supposed to have a cell phone at school at all have sent a text message from class. certainly, i think this slide tells us we have more work to do. particularly if you are a school administrator, when it comes to regulating the phone, and how important the phone has become. i left my smartphone at home

this morning. when i delivered it, i went back and got it. i couldn't imagine going the day without it. i suspect many of you feel the same way. i'm going to stop there. i'm going to introduce rosalind wiseman is going to comoderate the next panel on generate mobile speaks. rosalind is an internationally recognized export on children, teens, parenting, bullying, and leadership. she's best known as the author of queen bs and want to be bes. which is the book on the basis for the movie "mean girls." rosalind? [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> do i get to go first or you? i get to go first. all right. hi, herb, i'm rosalind wiseman, i'm going to co-facilitating the panel. the panel -- what i want to do about the panel, i don't know about you, i want to hear from young people about how to actually talk about these issues of technology in ways that make

sense. so we don't waste anybody's time. because i think lots of time when we do this work that when we talk about it, it's really -- it's just general. and so we're doing to really try to get to people's specifics and with young people specifics and our panel about what we can do and advise what your experience is. so y'all know chairman genachowski, he gave the info. we're going to be modeling the first panel. before we begin, i'd like to introduce our panelist. the people right here. as well, i'm a member of the lg text it advisory council. which is a program to help educate parents about teens and tweens mobile use. the survey is reporting that kids are using it and texting about once every 14 minutes. so to introduce our panel, we

have tori dugger. who is a 17-year-old attending some school. jonathan harris, who is a senior at dr. henry a. wise high school who maintained 4 hundredth -- 4.0 gpa. why don't we hold the applause until the end. aaronaaron -- erin mains, and la preston who's a local science engineer, author, and mother of

four children 6 to 17 years of age. stacey kopnitsky. and parr reaftab, she's wireless network issues. mr. don gordon, principal of john phillips sousa middle school in washington, d.c., lifelong educator and learner, in 2008, mr. jordon became a principal. these are our panelist. we hope that is going to be -- i know this is going to be a good one where we have an amazing

exchange of ideas. as chairman genachowski said, if you have questions and comments, twitter them and we can engage them as part of the process. all right. ready? all right. let's start. stacey, we're going to talk to you to start off as the jovial, give us the picture. so students texting affect the school event? give us examples. >> okay. at middle school in montgomery public schools in maryland, we do have a policy to give you the background and feedback on the counties policy which is similar to what was shared in the data. middle school and high school students are permitted to have their cell phones on the bus and in the school until the first school bell rings. then they are supposed to be off

and stored or out of sight. out of sight doesn't mean they have to be off their body. we encourage lockers. sometimes they choose to have it more safely kept on their personal self. with that being said, i think the chairman has over gone over the laws and regulations about texting and driving and the laws that are in place. i think the best thing for the schools to say is we do have policies. does that stop 100% of the use? no. as schools and as our school in particular we give out constant reminders and constant feedback to parents and students about the expectations. but we're still putting out fires. as we put out fires it's a daily reminder to students in looking at what are the expectations and what happens whenever we have these cell phone pop up in class and interpret the instructional day. so as a good educator, i'll

start with the positives. i do think that not during the instructional day, but part of the instructional day is kids do give me feedback on how important cell phones are to text their friends, their peers about homework assignments, information they might have missed if they were absent, they look at opportunities to network and connect in a social aspect. that's the positive. two examples i'd share, one that happened at my school recently was with the wild forwarding of text messages about hitting each other. it's hard to get a handle on where to find the start of a wild forwarding text. especially in a middle school environment where it's not always a positive environment for positive choices for kids. that's one other example. >> okay. thank you. and so i think what we'd like to do is ask the young people, you know, we live with technology.

as chairman genachowski said, this is a huge privilege to come into the schools. one the questions that i want to direct to the audience and teens, what are we saying as adults that are effective and ineffective about using technology? when you have a principal, what are principals saying, for example not to put you on the spot that are ineffective and effective about how we talk to you about using technology and mobile phones in the schools when as we said we heard from a few, some have stringent rules, some don't, we know that y'all have more control of yourself than we do; right? i'd like to turn it over to young people and say very specifically, what are things that adults have said to you that are effective about managing mobile use? and what are things that adults have said that are ineffective? what advise do you have that we can be more effective for you?

frank? >> well, i know for a fact that when a person comes up to me when i'm using my phone and comes in a really negative manner and just takes the phone from you, that kind of thing, that's really upsetting. and to do something like that, you feel like your privacy is being violated. i have gotten my phone taken away before. and the immediate reaction is turn off my phone, take out my battery. because usually when people come up to you in -- with the very violent way of taking your phone, you feel like your privacy is being violated and that you have to take measures to keep them out of your. >> sure. tori, can you give us an example? what's a way that somebody takes

your phone that feels disrespectful or violation of your privacy? >> i'd say that when a teachers make assumptions like they assume if you are in your bag that you are using your phone. and so they ask for your phone. of course, most of us have phones, and so they come to our bags, they take the phone and like frank said, we get upset and that makes kids want to find more inagain knewtive ways of using their phones without getting caught. what they are going is making kids think about how to hide it? making the problem worse. i've-teachers can the warning policy. when they give it back, we have to use our phone a different way.

it's not doing anything but increasing the amount of text messages or phone usage in class. now kids are saying i can't use it this way, but i can use it this way and won't get caught. >> got you. jonathan, erin, anything to add? >> i have some teachers that pretty much say, like, i know what it looks like when kids are texting. so if you are looking down or you are in your bag or something like that then they are going to ask you to take your phone away. but normally, like, the administrators at my school are not -- they don't really put it into effect as much. so they say we are not supposed to have our phones in school. but many of the teachers are really lenient and they like allow us to use phones in class. >> so let's be concrete and give adults some advise. what are effective ways to reach out to you?

what are effective ways? >> basically don't come in a very aggressive way. just ask politely. be like, hey, so and so, can you please stop using your phone. you are trying to get to the lesson. i've been caught, teachers said that to me, i put it away and don't take it out the rest of the day. >> what happens if they said please put it away and nothing happens? >> teachers will take it away. >> let me ask you something. two-part question. first is, what do you really think about this issue of frequency of texting or multitasking? right, you hear some of the adults here talk about text every 14 minutes, oh, you know, kids multitasking and all of the rest. that's a problem. what do you think? do you think that, you know,

when you think about getting the balance right between your schoolwork, in school, homework, and the different lures of the devices, do you think that there is a challenge here? is it something that you worry about? >> i'm a firm believer. in the classroom, usually shouldn't have our cell phones. because it's time to learn about instruction. but any other time during the day, lunch, on the bus, if we are walking in the hall ways, as long as we are doing -- as long as we are following the rules, doing what we are told, there's no reason why we shouldn't have our cell phones. i just think that it's an issue where the adults say, oh, well, it's a cell phone. we believe you shouldn't have a cell phone. so put it away. when they really cannot give us any concrete reason why you couldn't have the cell phone outside of the classroom.

[cheers and applause] >> i think some effective ways. one the effective ways that helped me -- i know we're getting outside of the classroom, one of the effective ways to help me not text and drive is when somebody sat down and showed me the statistics. okay, this is how you can -- this is your chance of getting in an accident while texting. this is your chance when you are not texting. showing me the information plain in front of my face. here are the statistics. here are some students that, you know, broke a leg in an accident because they were texting. really it is effective. >> so you are saying -- you are saying the facts matter. that you don't want to be told do this, not do that. but if you see facts that show texting and driving really can lead to getting hurt that that's persuasive. go ahead. >> like i'd also say, frank, it's true what you stated. just telling a kid don't do it because you shouldn't do it. we're not going to listen.

point-blank. okay. you said don't do it. let me go back. if you give a reasoning behind, 80 to 90% of teens will listen if there's a reason. my parents told me to do it, but they didn't give me a reason. if we have concrete evidence of why we shouldn't do it, we are more inclined to listen to it. at the age we are now, we can understand the facts. >> one more question. >> sure, then i'd like perry to chat about the texting and the driving. >> yeah. let me -- i'm going to put you all in the shoes of being the big brother or the big sister. and you are home and you have a little brother or a little sister and you are doing homework and you see that they are using a computer to do homework. and you see they are doing some research on, you know, a sight and they are learning skills. that's good. i'm going to assume you think that's a good thing.

then suppose you come back and you see that -- well, they are not doing their homework anymore. they've gone on to, you know, some sight to look at videos or they are doing their homework and they got their phone out and iming at the same time. you are worried they aren't concentrating on your homework. it's your little brother, your little sister, what do you say to them? >> stop. >> i think it's a maturity level thing. at my age i know when being on the computer, texting is going to get in the way of learning or getting a task done. for a young person, my little brother who could be fife -- five or six, they don't know. play, play, fun, fun. just telling them to stop, you can text as long as you get the work done. you can still text as long as you watch the dishes in a timely

manner. it's maturity. as you get older, you know what's right and what's wrong. you know how to meet deadlines and do certain things. as you get older, it becomes maturity thing. if you know you can't multitask, you know not to multitask. do one thing at a time. >> all right. so let's -- i'm sorry, frank. do you want to say something? >> yeah, i was going to say that. i have a sister that as soon as she's get homes, right on the computer, facebook. she doesn't do her homework until later on in the day. i mean basically, as long as you get it done, it's fine. >> well, we'll go back to this. one the things that i want to ask y'all to think about is how often when you go on to the sights when you are playing the video game, time passes, you wake up, it's two hours later. it's hard to do time management when they are so good at sucking you in. so that you lose track of time. so it's hard to manage your time and multitask that way. i want to just think about that.

but perry aftab has done -- what i'd like to do is turn it to perry about the driving. then i'd like for principal jordon to be able to talk about slipback. how do you manage this in a concrete your common sense way with a comments that your students made? perry? >> okay. i work with students a lot. giving you the tools you need to change the world. one of my teenage angels held his own event on texting and driving. one the things that he recognized was how oftens adults, older brothers, parents, texting while they are driving you or your younger brothers or sisters and people you care about. and that was a real issue. separate issue that i'm going to want you to answer this. second issue was when we asked

young people if they texted while driving, they answered one way. and when we asked them if they read a text while driving, they answered it in another way. so the kids who say they are texting, that's means you are moving your thumbs while you are communicating with somebody else, as opposed to reading what they are sending to you. what role do you think teens can play in stopping the parents from texting and driving and driving while distracted? >> actually on the way here, i think i saw at least five drivers texting while driving. sometimes i'm in the car with a family member. he has a droid. you can talk into it. it turns your words into text message. and i think he thinks that's like a good alternative to texting. >> do you? >> i don't know. i'm not really sure. >> frank?

>> i've actually been in a car with somebody that's driving and texting before. i'm not going to lie, it's scary. i kneel like they are not paying attention. one time they veered over to the speed bumps on the side. i was like oh. at that point, you guys just got to come up and be like stop. you need to focus on the road for a little bit. i'm trying to get to where i got to get to, you know. usually that works. you got to be upfront with the person that's driving. say you are not comfortable when them texting and driving. >> one of the things for all of the students. for all of the students sitting in the room, we tell them not to do it, i'm challenged. i pick up my phone. put it away. i get tempted.

i think one the things that i would charge the young people here about is to come up with ways, like specific concrete things that you can say to parents about reminding us in some ways to be good role models. also for you to hold yourself accountable in the same way that you want the adults to. is we can talk about it in the room. but it's another thing when we are not only driving but when we are crossing the street; right? how many times, how dangerous is that? when they are texting and crossing the street. i want you to think about that in terms of leaving the panel of what is it concretely that we can do to address this issue in more positive and constructive ways. so would you please as the person in the schools every day, day in and day out, give us some of your wisdom? >> i'm also speaking from the perspective of a parent. i have a seventh grade student. i realize lately in parents that i think we have to realize that we are not as cool as we think

we are. my daughter, she teaches me that every day. what we do at the school level i think is very important from the beginning of the school year. we have to set clear guidelines and we have to have a technology policy students are involved in developing. most schools have parent handbooks. but if you look at the parent handbooks, it might be a very small section on technology. so we have to do a lot to make sure that our technology policies are real that they are thorough, and that they are serious. but again the student input part is very important. also, we cannot frown on student use of technology because it's here. one stat that i've been reading a lot about is students find somehow, some way to fit in 10 hours of technology usage daily.

we can't fight it. we have to figure out how we can utilize that at -- and all educators, i'm sure your goal is student achievement and development of character. we have to figure out how we can use what students are doing to achieve those goals. what you do know is three reasons students use technology. one is hanging out. they call it hanging out when you socialize with your friends and things like that. the second piece would be messing around. they call it messing around. where you might go to the internet, you might search, you know, do some google-type things and eat newspapers and magazines. and the third, i was sharing it with my students. the third portion is called geeking out. right. and with geeking out, it's actually a positive. this is where students can use technology to build networks

with people. i talked to one kid coming up. she wants to be a lawyer. students can use technology to form those networks, get information on things that they plan on doing in the future, and use technology to benefit, you know, their goals. so susan what we are doing is we are trying to make sure that we tell kids that it's the time for managing out, messing around, and we expect you to spend this much time on geeking out or, you know, focusing on your education. when kids have the buy-in and they understand that you care about your development, they really respect those rules. >> i'd like to bring in another parent. if you could -- yeah please. >> hi, i'm sitting over here biting at the bit. because as a young adult science fiction writer, i have to put myself in a kids place lots of time. i think we parents forget what it was like to be a kid. one the things that we did not talk about that texting and

facebook and all of these wonderful things give us is it gives kids a venue to be popular. if you are a quiet person at school and you kind of really don't talk well face to face, being on the internet, being on facebook, being on twitter, allowed your forum to really create who you want to be. and it's very addictive to kids. very addictive to adults. and i also think that we need to educate our kids and give them empowerment. because one of the things that i talked to my kids about is the fact that everything that you text, everything that you tweet about, everything that you put on facebook doesn't go away just because you delete it or you don't see it on the screen. it says there forever. that means that what you tweet about and what you put on facebook, get cashed. you know, when you google somebody that has a facebook

account, and they've closed that account, and yet their name still shows up as their facebook. where do you think that data is being held? so that's one thing about, i think, when we talk about young people that we have to give them a little bit more credit. and we have to educate them. a lot of adults don't realize that either. when you put on the internet. what you text, what you put on facebook, even though you think it's deleted, doesn't mean it does. >> let me ask a question. we're going to have to end a few minutes earlier than planned. this is a good segue into a couple of things. one is this is to the students and i would ask this to y'all too in the audience. when we hear and you know -- you know, just like when we say driving and texting is bad. you shouldn't do it. it's dangerous. similarly, i'm asking you about -- if you know that things on

facebook are going to be cashed forever, does it stop the person from posting the whatever it is? and now let's go more specific into whatever it is. so besides geeking out, hanging out, and messing around, one the things that i think, correct me if i'm wrong, a lot of what technology is used for is creating and maintaining a lot of drama; right? a lot of like you stole my boyfriend, now you are this, you stole this, i can't believe you think you are like this. you know, people decide that they are not going to talk to you. you are trying to figure out why. then you figure out this person is mad at you. then you think they are wrong. so you start all of the drama. okay. if you are in the moment and you feel like somebody has been doing something wrong; right? something wrong to you. and you are sitting there with the phone, this is a two-part question, what stops you or

anything can stop you, when you think somebody has done something wrong, spreading malicious information? sending a picture that you did not give consent to that is totally embarrassing. what stops you from contributing to the drama? because you think in your mind you are just trying to get back at the person, or trying to even out the playing field. so that's that's -- i'll hold me second question for the students for a few minutes. think about that, for the audience as well. is anything going to stop you from contributing to the drama, tori? >> i think really it's only your conscience that can stop you. what will stop you from saying it in their face? what you stay to someone says with the person just as much what you put on facebook and sending the text message stays with the person. really the only thing that can stop you is you. it depends on the type of

person, their maturity and their personality. i know personally i've put some stuff that i really couldn't have put before. >> i was just going to ask. >> cell phone, twitter, facebook that i shouldn't have. just as i would have said it to their face, i had to go back and think about and in some cases apologize just as i would if i said it to the person. things that you put on facebook and twitter, they can be read the way you say it, or the read the way the person -- [inaudible] >> right. this will be our last sort of -- excuse me -- question as we go through. excuse me. so let's talk about for a little bit about the pictures and about people sending pictures and adults are really focused on sexting. that is the thing that's happening and people are freaked out about it. so first of all, i'd like to ask

principal jordon, have you dealt with it this year, in december? >> no, i haven't. not at all. i think a lot goes back again to character development. and the young lady tori just spoke about that. even though this -- the media use and the technology is a major issue, it goes back to what type of person the kid is. so in school, my goal is to try to make sure we are developing students with character. most of the time, kids will do the right thing if you -- just like jonathan said, explain it to them. the positives and the negatives and why you shouldn't and why you should do certain things. so we haven't. >> so here's my thought. here's my questions for the kids and then i'd like the adults to contribute. so if a picture does get -- goes around. do you think the fact that there's an embarrassing or

sexually provocative picture impacts the school environment? do you know -- how do people interact with the person who received to the person who forwarded to the person that sent it? how does it impact the overall school? jonathan? >> to answer the question, does it impact the school environment, yes. but it does it in a positive and a negative way. so the people who -- if a picture of a girl or guy was sent and it made it's way on facebook, there are two types of people. the people that's going to say go on facebook. go to the wise host page and see her half naked. right there, and i know probably, mckinley tech probably has one of those pages. [laughter] >> but they are right under it. right under it, it's really a lot of students that's going to say, you know what, i know this

girl or guy personally. she's never done that. why are you trying to embarrass somebody and hide behind facebook and technology? it is -- yes it does effect the school environment. but it goes back to the maturity level. mature people are not going to try to embarrass somebody like that on facebook. they are not going to try to send the picture or ask for the pictures. and then i think it also goes to self-esteem and self-confidence. why are you taking pictures of yourself to put out there like that? i think many factors are going to it. i think a lot -- i think actually students do a great job. we do a great job of supporting each other when it does happen when somebody does make the mistake. a lot of students get behind her and say, you know, she was going through something. she said a mistake. he's not that person. you shouldn't look down on her

like that. try to uplift it. >> i haven't observed that much of a problem of in my school. from what i've seen, kids are good about keeping it to themselves. you know, they like like -- evef they do send things, it doesn't spread around. >> okay. adults. what would you like to associate? >> i would like to say the middle school environment again -- this middle school that i work at currently i've been there for five years and we've had one case. it was one case of a young lady who send pictures and videos that got forwarded to three other sister middle schools and two feeders high schools. and it was devastating. the kids have nailed it. it is the maturity. you are talking about 11 and 12 versus high school students that maybe know better and don't have that sense of urgency to send those types of things for attention. so i think to put it into

perspective, we probably have about 90% cell phone use at our school. it is a concern. it is a parent concern nationally. we've had one case in five years. >> parr re? >> -- parry. >> parents are saying different things. however, you have sex bullying. other girls will forward it, not because it's a naked body because it's a ruin reputation. boys will forward it because it's a naked girls. schools don't know what to do that they have the images that may qualify as child pornography. kids are now afraid when they get them, they maybe charged with possession of child pornography. we've had many cases around the cold even if you take a picture of yourself if you are under

age, you could be charged with creating child pornography. it's distribution. now one -- once you get police, it could creates problems. it hits a lot more often than what i'm hearing here from any of the schools that we are dealing with from around the country. >> chairman. questions or comments? >> i'd like to thank everyone. what we wanted to do today is jump start the discussion about the opportunities and challenges? i appreciate the focus. thank you for being such a great moderator. i'm so appreciative to this panel. i know we'll have another great panel shortly. these are really important topics. >> in ending, first of all, thank you to all of our panelists as well. thank you, chairman, for being here the whole time. [cheers and applause] >> to wrap. i want to emphasize that mobile

technology, there's so much that's so good about it. it helps in many ways how we communicate. there's no reason to be in the dark about this. i want to encourage two things. encourage everybody to go to the l g -- lg text ed that we talked about. i want to challenge people that we are in a place that we need to get very concrete as we were saying so we can give you the resources, the information that works. instead of saying just don't press send. just don't do it. you all deserve, the adults in your community are understanding that technology is a wonderful thing. it's innovative, amazing presence in our lives. we have to be able to have guidelines and structures and engage in the technology in a civil way. if we do this, young people help

us and tell us what works for you and what doesn't, we can all do a much better job. thank you all very much for your attention and time. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> terrific. welcome back. thank you very much for those of you who are available to stay for the second channel. my name is john gottheimer. we're here to channel a great discussion with an all star panel that we are lucky to have with us today. entrepreneurs and childrens

experts and those from nonprofit organizations and industry and some leaders in academia. it's really a terrific panel. i know many of you are watching online. thank you for joining us there as well. let me give you if it's okay a brief introduction of our all stars here. tim sparapani, who is the director of technology on facebook. he's responsible for developing the interaction with policymakers. thanks for being here. marsali hancock, he works to help families implement internet safety and security in their homes. she brings 20 years of public service to the office and organization. michael clark is an entrepreneur and co-founder of safety web. online web site for parents that makes it easier to protect the reputation, privacy, and safety

of kids online. dr. michael levine over there. he's the director of the cooney center in educational and media technologies for young children. and he's very well known in the field. we're lucky to have him here today. on the other side, i'll start with maureen cooney from sprint. she leads sprint privacy's team and more than a decade of privacy leadership as an attorney and policymakers here in washington, d.c. allen simpson, is the vice president of policy at common sense media who is a close partner of the fcc. we work with quite a bit. alan's [combines experience add an advocate for children, as well as work within media organizations. it's good to see you.

dane snowden, he's charged with overseeing the policies for advocate si -- advocacy and children. thank you for coming. and stephen balkam, from the family online safety institute, and his mission is to make the online world safer for kids and for their families. stephen has been a good host to the fcc many times. good to see you. thank you for having you. i guess we'll get into it if that's okay with everyone. i'll try to start with a question and open it up. if they have somebody that you want to have, let's jump in. let's make the conversation as

smooth as possible. if you have questions that you want to submit, jordan and roger are here. get them your question and they'll get it to me. let's start with alan, if that's okay. how do i know, alan, when i have a young child and i know one of the things that many people come up to us at the fcc and talk about many parents is how do i know when to give my child a cell phone? ho do i know when they are ready? do you know what should be part of that decision making process? what do you suggest that i know? we at the fcc are not in the business of telling parents what to do. we want to provide information. part of this, of course, is to help get thoughts from all of you on what you think is best. >> yeah, it's a good question. one we get at common sense media. there are a lot of factors. the earlier discussion included

aspects on things that can go wrong. one the first reasons that every parent thinks about about getting the mobile phone is safety. it is an increasingly necessary tool in our lives today to keep track of our kids and make sure our kids can respond to parents and stay in touch. so our general thinking goes in the range of, young, eight to ten to 12 depending on your kid. i think you are having most having mobile phone. a lot of them at 12 and 13. sometimes as hand me downs. but there's no perfect anal. it's probably more important for parents to be thinking about have you done the preparation with your children about getting a phone? have you thought about the rules and conduct that you are going to establish? okay. most parents come to us with that question really starting with my kids are begging for a cell phone. when is the right time? what parents can do with that bit of leverage is establish

what the rules should be? before you get a phone, we're going to establish that you can only use it for these purposes. you need to check in, do the other things, you can download this, you can't download that. parents need to understand all of the ramifications of having a phone. it's an important safety tool. as we heard in the earlier discussion, it's also an important tool for a lot of other things. >> really, parents should take the lead. dane, do you have an opinion? >> i want to echo was alan was saying. it starts with -- i represent the wireless tri. one would think everyone should have a cell phone. actually we think that safety is first. and before a parent makes the decision and we know in the united states you have to be 18 years old to get a cell phone here for a child to have a cell phone, a parent must decide that for them. but again the conversation must -- should happen beforehand. you know, i don't have any kids. but i have three beautiful god

daughters, five, eight, and 10. i am a cool god father for the 10-year-old, not for the eight and five-year-old. i said no. some of it is maturity, responsibility. it's having that consideration which is critical and having the tools. i think many of us on the stage are providing the tools for what the parents -- how they can begin that conversation of what are some things that can be asking and alan what they do at common sense media and others are phenomenon and what we do at ctia and what other carriers do as well to help them guide them through the process of the questions we should be asking. >> we'll get into the tools in a minute. people want to here. but dr. levine. >> this question is an interesting one. it doesn't come down to when you have the first conversation about owning a cell phone. it comes down to how you model your behaviors beginning in early childhood. what our research at the cooney

center is finding there's a viral, social phenomenon. in other words, participants of young children, preschool children are using their mobile devices to pass them back to their what's being called itots. we are seeing there are special instances in which during preparation for a meal, during a car ride at the grocery store, where these devices if properly used can scaffold an online discussion about education and some sort of communication with a loved one. so there's behavior that can begin in early childhood that leads to a more comfortable transition at -- you know, somewhere between ages 10 and 13 when the child beginning to control their own mobile device. >> it's okay. we talked about this a little bit. i have an 18 month old. we're doing the a,b, cs on the

ipad. is that okay? >> it matters a lot. i wouldn't suggest that you leave your 18-month-old as a mommy blogger said to me once for four hours with an ipad or smartphone. >> i'm happy to get four minutes, actually. >> sure. when we are talking about an instrument to teach a little something to an 18-month-old. but if you are a parent and don't have a smartphone or don't wish to have your child consume the wheels on the bus or elmo teaching letters and numbers, that's fine too. no need to rush. if it's part of the household economy, so to say, and part of the communication being established by mom, dad, sister, and brother, it's fine in limited doses. >> we talk about this in tv. a lot of studies show that you

shouldn't have -- obviously there's possible effects in putting your child too young in front of a television. we're not seeing this same phenomenon with -- so you are saying it's not a zero tolerance. there's a moderation. >> there are concerns that professionals have. the american academy of pediatrics has no guidelines which does not prescribe use of digital media of television at age two but gives firm guidance on the healthy balance of use. and i think that grandma's good sense, parents common sense are beginning to merge on a new formula for balance. >> yes, you have to look look -- there's two different components. when you look at early childhood education, you want to help them manage. as they mature, you have to help them manage. the two skills that i think are critical that use or anyone that uses a mobile device mechanize

that we can maintain healthy relationships and we can create positive reputations. but recognizing the role that our mobile or any of the digital devices play in our personal relationships and reputation is really key to successful use. >> and so as part of that, i don't know, stephen, if you want to add before. >> i want to say i think it also depending on what kind of phone. i was leading a discussion with online safety with six graders yesterday. they pointed out their younger brothers and sisters have the kid friendly phones. and then there's what they described as just ordinary celll phones, and then there's the smartphone. like the iphone and droid phones and so on. they definitely thought the younger brothers and sisters shouldn't get an iphone. they should get the kid friendly. they thought they were old enough for an iphone, if you see what i mean. >> getting to the separation side of the -- going back to the

settings and so if you do have a smartphone or any phone, i know that some of the computers and the carriers are offering settings to allow children to go some places but not other places and limit time. one the things we hear all the time, what i'm most nervous about as a parent, i don't know why my voice is echoing like that. [laughter] >> thank you. >> you better make a good point. >> yeah, i better. as a parent, you can't -- if you give your child a phone, you can't control where they are going, how much time they are on, right? they are gone. it's not as if you can see them. they have the device in their pocket. they are off at school during the day or in a different room having their own -- having a relationship with a device that you are not negatively part of minute to minute. and they could do things like go on facebook and i know tim would say there's an age.

13 that i think where you are cut off and shouldn't be before 13. what are -- what do we do about this? what's practical under the private sector to come up with some solutions on this. michael, i don't know if you want to jump in on here. >> well, i think the first thing to point out as a follow on to stephen's point is there's no -- today there's very few gowest l, carriers are providing smartphones for free and incentivizing those phones. the carriers have done a good job of providing parental control at the entrance levels. what kinds of applications, tools, what are the things that i as a parent can determine is appropriate. where the gap starts to disappear, nine to ten and all the way through the teenage. it's not as much about controlling as learning what they are doing and making sure they are doing so in a way

that's moderate. treating the teens, thanks to all of you that came here today. treating them with with respect. -- treating them with respect. the most effective way is to work with kids is respect them and be respectful in having the conversations. the most effective tools and this is one of the models that we built off of is building and empowering kids to trust the parents with the behavior, not cut the cord, but encourage responsible use and do so across all connected devices. what we are talking about here is generically mobile phones. that's how tved are connected, that's how every type of device, wi-fi, 700, 400, led tv, that's the type of thing. >> tim, do you want to comment? >> the united states is quite

backwards from the rest of the world. here in the united states most people encounter the internet directly through a computer. most of you, that's your first experience. either in the library, classroom, or foam. the rest of the world is using at least one of these. this is their primary means of interacting with the internet. they don't have access to computers in lots of places in the rest of the world. they do have access to mobile phones. so one of the things that facebook did this summer which we are very excited about is we became the first company on the web to allow you to set privacy settings no matter where you are, using your smartphone. and have those privacy settings like apply everywhere, including back on the web site at facebook.com, or on an app if you are looking at facebook that way. i think that's the direction that we are all heading. is that more and more of the features which have become standardized to keep us safe, secure, happy on our various web

sites or services have to move to the mobile device. that's where we are headed. we have a couple of other innovations like that. we're happy to talk about. >> do you think -- it seems like -- are we? are you comfortable with where we are right now? and i'll ask him this too. do you think there's enough in the marketplace? and, you know, i know we put a lot out there and have a lot of tools that are being developed and i talked about some that sprint has. do parents now where to find this information what to do how is it easily accessible? do you feel -- should we be satisfied with where we are right now? >> i think it's changing so fast. first of all, parents have an incredible job of keeping up with the new technologies on the one hand. all of the apps and the whacky places that kids go to out on the internet. we emphasize tools, rules, and schools. the technology in all of the

carriers have parental controls. one of the ones that we use in verizon wireless, for example, allows you to see -- not the content but when the text have been sent and when it's been received. i was able to discover that my daughter was one of the 200 text a day kids simply by looking at our phone bill online. >> are you paying for that? i know verizon has a service that they are charging for; right? >> we were. she was hit with a phone bill of $92. now we're unlimited texting. she's contributing $5 a month. >> are you paying for the tracking? >> oh, the tracking service. yeah that's a $5 a month. which we think is -- money is really well spent. but back to your point. i think parents are often at a disadvantage. we need a lot of parental

education. we asked the kids and the parents to sit down and make commitments about how they are going to act online and also, by the way, that parents won't over react when kids, for instance, get into trouble. >> right. that's great. there's an understanding just like you had any other conversation about anything. making sure you have this conversation. dane and maureen, why -- i bring up the fee. because it's brought to us a lot. :

varying levels of what parents may want depending on that child because as we look at what a 12 year old child may want or need versus a 17 or 18-years-old it is very, very different sort is important that we have a suite of tools and in some of them are free and some of them are for cost. i want to go to one of your earlier point as well. according to pew, 52% of parents set limits so they are aware of this as an option so parents are finding it for sure and for example, one of the reasons we launched our website be smart wireless is to be sure the other 48% of parents make sure they

know about it, the tools and filters are there for consumers so in terms of the question much like what we do now, if you buy a computer you pay for software to make sure you get privacy settings were mcafee or whatever it might be is the same standard we tend to follow. but again, we have a varying degree of some things are free and some are of cost. >> do you feel like we are in a good place to just to keep this conversation on this line are we there yet? >> one of the areas that can meet each year is to help navigate when something goes wrong so it's been exciting to watch the trends to allow our resources for parents to manage, you know, to buy orloff features say you can pick the time of textiles were certain number of hours all of those are helpful but i think as you look cross section when something goes wrong how do they get back in touch with you, what kind

support to you have and also from the education community, helping schools with staff development so they can manage when something happens on the mobile device how can they react in a way it is responsible and helpful rather and out of your treen power the teachers and students to better manage and one thing we haven't brought up yet i would like to throw out to the panelists is used connect with their devices in a way we never will. for me the digital devices or in the efficiency tool to connect quicker and faster but never in a rich or emotional way and so recognizing the emotional level when something goes wrong they can feel traumatized so what can we do as the adults around the students are now in our own children and then as ups the empress pittard and bayh standards in the environment we become aware of things we might not have because we didn't see in the classroom but it's going to be captured on the mobile device and on facebook really quickly so how can we create a

network of support to support those students when something really isn't terrific happening. >> t want to comment on that and then michael. >> too many michaels. the one thing i do want to do is challenge the wireless industry to make sure the data that's available for parents to understand their children's behavior continues to be available because as i look at the trends and prepaid industry and across even the major carriers but i have seen is less and less of that is available. in some cases i can't see where texts were made and with the conversations were, and even more and more difficult the conversations are occurring in safety web we have a comprehensive solution that covers the web and mobile and that is the slice the parents are finding useful today who are my kids talking to the most, how does the behavior change not digging into the private information but focusing on who

the contacts and relationships are with and the most important challenge is pulling the same data out of the application usage. today if i am on an iphone or anne gurley device or blackberry device as a parent i don't know what applications my child has downloaded, what was free, what kind of data there is and that data can play a very important role because it's private information, private conversations that you've got a blind faith in what that developer is doing with that data so that's an important challenge to all loveless. >> let me speak to one more issue that parents and policy makers safety first, absolutely positively especially with very young children. but educational value is also a close tie and one of the issues we are picking up on as marketers perhaps somewhat overzealous lee marketing applications and other things

you use with mobile devices as educational without any independent -- its assertion it's not based on research so research we did for the digital a couple of years ago took a look at 288 projects labeled educational and some sort of marketing scheme and two of them had a research or intentional value. i am not arguing that everything needs to begin educational, fun and entertaining is fine for part of the day but in terms of thinking about how safety leads to learning and development, we need to put these things together in a more substantial balance. apple is moving in destruction. naturally it is moving in this direction. we need some industry standards to help reach with the educational value is of the different products. >> i just want to pick up on a

couple of the points you made and i think some of them were really exceptional. one was yours about parents needing simplicity in order to actually do the provincial monitoring the. as dana mengin many of the servicers the carriers provide our free and add-ons are at a cost. sprint launched in november 1 site parents can go to folks who are already customers can go to sprint dhaka, but if you put in family you are in a family is known and eight not only will walk you through how to set up controls on taxing, websites visited, appropriate phone number some your child may be permitted to call and with music camera eight walks the parents through how to do that which is

sometimes with the other 42% of the parents are not already instituting the controls. it can be difficult if it isn't walked through. together point michael just made about linking up safety with the simplicity on controls is also important so for instance from our site and other carriers sites you get right to the safety information. sprint happens to have a partnership a group of coalitions, big brothers and sisters of america, knickknack and the educational association for net safety and you get to that right from our site as you do from other carriers on their particular safety site, so it is very important that is in one place -- >> so more clarity, more for parents and the ease of access

to this information so the parents can know if they want it where to get it will. one thing -- yes, sure. >> one thing the industry has done a good job of making that information more available and accessible, one point we have raised a lot is most parents first interaction with the stone is when they purchase it, so advances can be made there as well and vendors who do not work for sprint but work for the store could also be helpful in getting the message out but i want to pick up on one of the things michael said. the biggest growing area of the mobile devices is the applications and there is very little when formation out there right now for the parents' modest about is this educational or valuable, but what age group is inappropriate -- >> is there a movement afoot to help categorize that? >> we are working on that right now. it's funny before we began stephen asked me where are we stay ending on their reading maps and that is a process that

as you know, josh and many in the audience may not know we in the wireless industry don't control the applications. you can make an application in your garage in america and get it up on someone's network and start selling it and become a millionaire which is something wonderful about the application world and the openness of the systems and the carriers we have. but we are in the process of trying to harmonize and get a system in place that would augment what we have already done in the industry when it comes to reading systems we want to make sure the parents don't have to keep learning something new over and over again that they can learn -- they can understand the concept of what apps are and how they are treated so we hope to have someone announced that. >> the other thing is also giving information to parents so as we are saying it's easy to access but with that information is, where they are getting it and also the point of sale as allen pointed out, different points of interaction when the

connect to get this information especially if -- like anything there's so much coming at all of us these days have to you get it in an easy way and understand what to believe and not to believe and what is safe and not even as a parent to believe because you don't know when you are being marketed to or when it is pure, as we've gotten some questions from the audience if it's okay if i can jump in here and one of the parry you will like this, one of the themes is of course when you put something on the internet how do you trace it, get and also this one specifically of can you tell more about the parental controls for facebook and more about the automatic app that allows friends to see where you are or where your child is, this is the tracing information also on the mobile devices, location base which is a big finger that is coming out. >> so there's a lot to respond to.

when you delete something -- there were some misstatements in the earlier panel. i fink people are rightfully saying if you put something up on the internet, if you send a text it could be out there for forever. that's true. but when you delete something on facebook it actually is deleted and it's not recovered. that doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful, so students, and there are a bunch of you in the audience, i have to tell you facebook is a privilege and it's not a right, and when you do something inappropriate and it's reported to us we reserve the right to take away your account and i know that is a big punishment. i have a 16 year old brother in law, and when his parents, my in-laws, have taken away his facebook rights for a week, he feels as if the world has ended, he's cut off from his friends, he feels like he's not really a person any more. when you delete something on

facebook it really is deleted, however, it's different than deactivating your account, so to help you wipe out things you shouldn't have put out there in the first place but that means you have to be cautious in the first place because when you share with somebody else, if you share a photograph, if you share a comment, even if you delete on your account it's still on their account because they have access and they can view that information and that's where you have to think twice, sometimes three times before you actually see something to somebody and react in anger or even with a joke because you don't know how somebody else leader, will say that and interpret that so i urge a lot of caution. with respect about tracing and parental controls, we actually don't offer an application for that. all of the apps on our side are based on third-party developers, separate companies who build the tracking software. we do encourage, however, every minor to from your parents and

if you are a parent listening we urge you as a condition of allowing your child to have a facebook account to make them be friends with you. i know there's limited profile and parents probably don't know what that is but the kids certainly know what that is where you can hide some of the information but i think that is essential that parents be part of the relationships that you have when you start a facebook account. >> so on the location based information, just on that point so whether or not you can see what someone is doing or the pictures, but what about the knowing where they are and obviously field, quickly developing field and this is brought up all the time of parents concerned with -- it's wonderful in terms of safety and we use it a lot with, you know, if you call 911, which is a wonderful aspect of it, and there's lots of positive uses it to a restaurant nearby is a great resource, and the flip side is people are concerned about stalking or tracing

issues, does anybody want to speak to that? >> i will take it. the one year less issue has a simple principle notice and conceit, what that means for some of the kids over here is that when you are on -- if you have a smart phone and you will see something that pops up and says we want to identify your location and you have to say yes or no, you have the authority to be able to say i want someone to know where i am right don't want someone to know where i am. the phone company is usually when to know where you are and we do that for reasons because of 911 so we can figure out where you are in case of emergency but our general principle is that we want to make sure that there is effective and clear notice and consent for all users of these devices. it doesn't matter if you are 40 some odd-years-old like i am or if you are 15 like some of the young people in the audience. >> i would just add to that if i were a student and you saw a pop up on your phone the asks

permission to track your location, what's most important is to think about the use of that application, what are they collecting? why are they collecting your location information, and not every app is a friendly or trustworthy app, you also have to evaluate yourselves is this a app i want to track me? is there another one that does the same thing that i might have a greater sense of confidence in and that's very important. on the other hand, for the parents in tracking, the services that are provided -- sprint has a family locator and other services have others, those can be tremendously helpful and soothing to apparent where you have two working parents and the child is being picked up by many professionals who are helping with day care to make sure the phonies in the backpack and locates where they

are moving after those school hours can be very helpful. >> i would like to say i think the principle expressed is the right one. i don't think we are seeing it applied sufficiently. i think there are a lot of apps that have gps or location aspects that are not fully revealed and people use them and there is going to be potential danger. i do recognize the location has its benefits for parents, kids come anyone using the applications but there are also potential problems and i don't think people are getting enough information and especially kids are not getting enough information how these work and i think that is a shared responsibility. jane lynch mentioned at the beginning kids need to be responsible with their phones, we all need to be responsible with this technology and i think pointing to the fact a third party company is the one who creates the application doesn't relieve the carrier or anybody else of their responsibility for

trying to make that information more clear and accessible as we were saying at the beginning. >> to that point, on being responsible and i know you mentioned on facebook you can wipe it clean and we talked about this yesterday lot of texts are out there -- it's hard to wipe them out completely, but even what people are not taxed in an obviously another major topic is cyber bullying or sexting and the issues around that. to talk to parents and this is consistently a friend of mine that's been in several "new york times" pieces lately of raising this issue how do we help parents or what do parents to about this and is their something more information we can give? is sitting in sitting down with a contract and should a parent be able to monitor it? what are the solutions? >> they are important for parents to recognize all the digital communication it's not private so i want my children to recognize i'm not putting in on

every conversation with the fact i actually could help stem to recognize everything they post actually can be or is public and sometimes we get confused with privacy settings versus encryption, so when i sent my privacy settings on facebook they are not encrypting what i put, so it can -- anybody that view is what i've written or post-it them in various ways could be shared through some types of technology so helping you to recognize the true nature of technology i am a firm believer in just let kids know the truth and you don't have to try to soften it, just let them understand that it's going back and forth and, you know, once you put -- once the images are out there there is no way to fully, completely, 100% retract them and i think when you watch their face you begin to better understand the nature of technology they are going to make better traces. >> how do you build a positive reputation. >> the positive reputation plus healthy relationships sometimes

you see text in that it's almost compulsive where they are trying to problem solve or push their own agendas and it can be harassment or intimidation, helping the kids to recognize that and it and know how to respond to that is an important skill. >> either michael d. want to add to that? >> there's a couple important things we need to make sure parents are doing and the first one is being productive, so tims point about making short before your child helps on facebook that you, are there first friend, there is also making sure that we are not building applications and building platforms that allow for anonymous usage. we've seen things in the industry where it became very abusive environments where there is no accountability for who is posting content about others. you've got to build a legitimate relationships on line in the same way you build them offline and then finally i think as we were just talking about location, i think there is something for all of us whether we are working on applications

on the phones were building the infrastructure to accommodate the applications, it is the more we make the little actions implicit the more things are going to happen, so for instance location we've seen so much growth in location data being shared three years ago if i wanted to share my location with a photograph, with an update that was three separate e-mails, three separate interactions. today in almost every application it's one click and i'm not thinking about it, i'm not giving additional consent at that point in time and its because i accepted that application and the 35 different privacy options they ask me for up front, so it's as an industry we have to be the shepherds of making sure that we are encouraging the responsible development of these applications and responsible usage of the data for the applications but then also in powering parents with the ability to stay ahead of the data and not be the last ones to know. >> is the private-sector coming up with applications to help

parents here? i mean, we were out recently in california at a show and realized there was just it seemed to be a tremendous growth in innovators developing, garage innovators developing new apps to help parents and make sure that -- to help them avoid problems. >> it's where we've stepped up and really thought we were -- where we believe we are taking this direction that's changing the security industry. everything we've done traditionally as an industry is focused on protecting devices, protecting ships come protecting bits and bytes of data crossing wires and the future security model has to shift and be more about starting a person is what we are protecting and then working out words. what are the elements of being a person that need to be protected? its my reputation, it's my privacy, it's my identity, and all of that combined is reluctant to safety, and that's where we have to think and it's a new paradigm for everybody to

look at. >> one more thing we haven't discussed in the protection and education of children with the use of digital technology and that is expectations for kids of the adults in their lives interactive notte technology. it's my view and this is changing very slowly that is something of a remote that it exists between the home environment and community environment and school the environment, lots of good reasons for that, sexting and cyber bullying and cheating and all the kind of things people write, you know, journalistic accounts about but if you can figure out a way to get an early childhood to align those expectations between the parents come between the educators, between the grandparents so that there is a behavior set children are comfortable with we would make more progress here. >> i didn't want to cut you off before and you wanted to comment on the cyber bullying and sexting. >> this is a perfect segue into what we are all finding here we are today in 2010 and that is a

shared responsibility each of us have, the industry has a role, parents have a role, and students have a role and it's fascinating if you look back in time there was a point in time we couldn't use calculators in the classroom. there are schools as we saw and amanda's report that our cell phones in the schools. what we are suggesting is as a thought is we have to bring technology into the classroom and teach digital literacy and its teaching digital literacy is not just teachers teaching students it's also students teaching parents and other organizations teaching everyone else to helpless all understand how do we do this together and again it's not one individual group or one individual student or teacher it is everyone working together to figure out how do we do it and advance the goal as we move forward. >> the last word on that point before we close because i heard the bell and we are in school here. >> we are in a historical

transition phase right now. all of us on the stage were brought up within -- we have analog childhoods and then the digital world has happened to us as adults to read our kids are just basically living in a digital world so i think that we have a major job on our hands during this transition phase to get particularly to parents to get to them in interesting ways. i thought it was significant that we had a hollywood star to open up the show for us. "glee" recently dickerman bullying and that was part of the thing, is it ordinary families? modern family had a skit for basically the family had to give up the internet for two or three days and we just watched the family almost fall apart but it is a very interesting kind of teaching moment for us sitting on the couch when i wonder if we could do that and the answer came back don't even try. but all i'm saying is as much as we say it's got to be done in

the schools and it's got to be -- the government has a will, industry as a rule, hollywood and storytellers have a role, too. >> that's a great way to end. a tremendous panel with lots of different ideas. this will not be solved overnight but it's important that's what we are giving the fcc to have these conversations and so to help parents do what they think is right and have the tools they need and it's why we are here today. i think it was -- and i want to thank mckinley for hosting us. this was a terrific day. think you all for taking time out of your busy day. thank you. [applause]

now a look at u.s. refugee policies and whether some refugees who emigrated to the u.s. or wanted to have faced deportation or delay for being on terrorism suspect list. you'll hear from officials from several religious organizations. this is hosted by the hudson institute. >> figure for those in the room and those watching on c-span. my name is -- i'm the president and ceo of human-rights first and we are here to talk about a

problem that has motivated a very broad coalition of organizations to believe the united states should be doing all it can both to protect itself from terrorism and to protect refugees who seek safety on our shores. our immigration laws that target individuals who engaged in or supported the commission of terrorist acts serve a very legitimate goals including from the united states people who threaten other national security and engage in or support it acts of violence inherently wrongful and condemned under u.s. and international law. both of those purposes are consistent with the nation's commitment to protect refugees who fled political religious or other forms of persecution. indeed the 1951 refugee convention and its pravachol with the united states as the party excludes from protection people who have arranged serious crimes including acts of the

convention also allows the country to expel a refugee that poses a danger to the security or who's been convicted of a particularly serious crime in that country and constitutes a danger to the community. but today, despite recent improvements in oh-la-la has sponsored by senator leahy and qaeda and despite the hard work of many in the obama administration, many legitimate refugees pose no threat to the united states have had their applications for asylum or permanent residents or family reunification denied or delayed and to overly broad provisions of the u.s. immigration law that were intended to protect the united states against terrorism. at human rights frist organization which i believe we see the impact of these laws and policies oppose every day. our refugee protection program provides pro bono representation to individuals who claim political, ethnic or other forms of persecution who seek asylum protection in the united states.

our clients come from countries very diverse countries over 80 different countries including iran, iraq, burma, sudan, ethiopia, congo, the drc, liberia, sierra leone and china. refugees from each of these countries and many others have been unjustly protected by the terrorism stars. we have issued over the course of the last four or five years to reports on the subject. the first in 2006 and another last year in 2009. and through that process -- thank you -- we learned of many individual refugees who have been adversely impacted by these provisions. today you're going to hear about some of those refugees and you'll hear about the details of the mall and policies that prevent them from gaining the protection and to which they are entitled but i want to mention just a couple of the front just to give you an idea of the kinds

of cases that we are talking about. fred symbol, a sri lanka and refugee who paid a ransom to his kidnappers spent two and a half years and immigration detention upon its arrival in the united states and then was forced to wear a humiliating electronic ankle bracelet for more than two years after his release from those conditions on till he spent over five years in immigration proceedings here in the united states. a majority of it after he had already been found to qualify for asylum as a refugee but while he was waiting to receive a waiver from the material support a bar for the money that was being paid to his captors to allow him to escapes. through those years she has remained separated from his wife and family, even as conditions in his home country deteriorated dramatically. another case of which we became aware during our research is an ethiopian father of five who had been living in the united states for seven years and was granted

asylum by the immigration court more than four years ago was jailed after the decision to grant him asylum. that was reversed based on a leader board of immigration appeals decision that applied the law overly broad definition of tear free terrorist organizations which will hear more about in a moment. the immigration judge after reconsidering the case found that this man and his own political activities for peaceful had suffered torture in ethiopia and he would face a probability of further torture if he were deported and then he was eligible for asylum, but for the material support bar. but there's no process in place to consider people in his situation for the waiver of the material support for the cases are in this procedural policy. this is a serious problem and it has brought together a serious coalition of groups and individuals to tackle it. the groups you see in front of you today and i will introduce them in a moment are the people and groups they represent we

signed a letter in october to president obama urging him to address this issue and to ensure at least that the provisions of the current law are interpreted and implemented in such a way that individuals such as the two that i just described, refugees from sri lanka and a ethiopia are able to get a timely protection that they deserve. our panel today is an incredibly diverse as i said and also quite knowledgeable about the details of law and the implementation of all that caused this tragic situation that we are trying desperately to fix. i want to introduce each of them very briefly and then we are going to hear about five to seven minute comments from each of the panelists and then we will open up to questions and discussions.

we have first to my left, kevin who is the director of public affairs and migration policy of the u.s. conference of bishops and next we will hear from galen carey from the national association of evangelicals representing 41 denominations. barrett duke will be next, vice president for research of the southern baptist ethics and religious liberty commission, a southern baptist church that has 16 million members and represents 45,000 churches. next we will hear after barrett from michael horowitz who's the host to the of the hudson institute. michael served in the ronald reagan administration and also played a key role in getting the improvement to the law that i referenced co-sponsored by senator schogol and lee heat in 2007. and after michael we will hear from melanie nezer first u.s.

policy and advocacy at hebrew immigrant society and is incredibly knowledgeable about the details of the law and their impact on their real refugees. finally is wendy wright of the concerned women for america the largest public policy women's organization. so, you've got a very broad perspective as i said and people who are devoting the energies and the talent of their individual energy and talent and power of their organizations to stand up for refugees who are unjustly affected by these laws. >> thank you to the hudson institute for having me today. i am kevin alpe the director of the public affairs of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and let me first explain why the catholic church is concerned about this issue. first of all it's because it is an institutional issue. we of the largest settler of

refugees in the country and bring in about 18 to 20,000 refugees into this country each year. we have overseas operations through catholic relief services and the migration commission that see these cases everyday in the field and are often calling us to ask to see what we can do to get individuals admitted barred by material support so we have an institutional issue and we also look at this as a justice issue. the catholic church and catholic bishops strongly support the government role in protecting our country and defending our borders but we think we can balance that with the goal of maintaining our leadership and international leader in human rights and protect human rights which has really been an inspiration to countries and individuals around the globe but i think we can do both and that is why we are here today to talk about how we can do both when forward. i thought i would give a quick

summary of how we got here with history has been on this issue, and we all know that this decade has been characterized by the 9/11 attacks and a lot of the politics in this country has been geared towards responding to those attacks at least on a national security realm and this has impacted the refugee area as well. immediately after those attacks the patriot act was passed which was an understandable response to the terrorist attacks that occurred in our country but like the bills passed like this sometimes there is an unintended consequences and we believe that one of the unintended consequences was the expansion of the definition of a terrorist organization is. they included another category called a tier three organization, and it really expanded the number of groups that could be considered terrorist groups, and i will quote what the definition is it is two or more individuals

organized or not that engages or has a subgroup in cages in terrorist activities, and we already have a broad definition of terrorist activities in ferc in a which was added to include not only the use of explosives or firearms but also other weapons are dangerous devices and with the intent to affect the safety of one or more individuals or damage property. those are pretty broad definitions when you look at them on their face and they are done with the intent of trying to protect our country which is what we all want to do, but it has had an unintended consequence and does apply to even groups who are resistant and around the world who may be pro-democracy resistance groups that our government has supported in the past or supports currently so we are looking at a situation where there are terrorist groups that have no harm intended toward the united states in fact they are

fighting the repressive government but because of the broad definition they qualify as a terrorist organization. to compel the matters we had the material support provision, which of course bars anyone who provides material support knowingly to a terrorist organization so expand the terrorist definition to expand the involvement between refugees who are seeking protection and the resistance groups and have excluded the large number of refugees coming forward. in fact, it has barred thousands from asylum from the removal and also is impacting cases for permanent residency, adjustment of status in this country and also for family unification. no congress realizes they might have overreached in 2007 and pass some waivers that the administration could use, discretionary wager's ticket use in individual cases and some group weavers and they then used

-- i would think only sparingly about 10,000 exemptions have been awarded and over 20,000 refugees are still being impacted by this and 4600 cases i am told because of some believe they could have been involved in terrorism. we believe from the business position that there needs to be a statutory change to look at some of these provisions and the broad definition and also what conditions the refuge your someone might have done to support a terrorist group for example of the the gun to their head they are not admitted because there isn't and we are a signatory to the latter which tries to earn the administration to look of the waivers and use them more aggressively than they are doing. the have done a lot but they need to do more to look at these cases so that bone of writer refugees were persecuted, the ones we should be protecting are the ones we are allowing into

the country so we can maintain the balance of protecting the national security bill also is even for people or of the world and that is where the bishops are coming from and it and we can achieve that working with the end of penetration in congress to make the changes and implement ifill wall. >> thank you. >> my name is galen carey from the national association of evangelicals which is as lisa said represents 41 evangelical denominations as well as many christian schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, missions and other groups. before joining us spent 26 years working with the world relief which is our humanitarian affiliate working both in source countries of refugee such as areas undergoing civil war, severe human rights abuses in extreme poverty as well as in

first asylum countries and some cases in refugee camps and is involved in a settlement worked here in the united states and work with the asylum seekers. why do we care about this issue? we care because the people whose lives are being hurt and damage by these policies are people that we know and care about. while i was working in mozambique's some years ago, my wife was working in a refugee camp and missed a boy who had fled the war they are fighting there in congo and had come all the way to mozambique walking as the refugee when he eventually became a part of our family and was informally adopted as our sun and lives here in the united states. fortunately he was able to be accepted as a refugee but many others in similar circumstances to his have not been accepted

for the reasons which are discussed in the report and that we outlined in this letter. many times people think that if you make it to a refugee camp that you're okay, it is a place of safety as you wait for permanent solution. in fact often that is not the case. from my work in refugee camps and there were many people who were raped and abused and robbed and many other things in the camps supposedly under international protection. in one case i visited with a pastor and his wife from rwanda who were in a camp in mozambique , the wife had been receiving threats from some of the other refugees in the camp and asked to leave the camp and they did and somehow they were able to survive with nothing, no

support of any kind but then people after her chuck treen and murdered her leaving the pastor and his five children basically with no where to go. too many times that is what happens and too many times refugees are reduced permanent solution for many reasons. sometimes it's matters of capacity but in the cases we are discussing today, these are people who in fact have fled persecution, people seeking freedom. the united states is a country which is a beacon of freedom are around the world. but too often boast meant to keep us safe to nothing to enhance our security and hurt other people and in fact my experience working in many countries when the united states isn't seen as a beacon of freedom and hope it reduces our security and meanwhile all the time which government officials spent on these weavers and very

complicated maneuvers would have to be done to deal with cases which should be straightforward approvals that is time that is not available to go out to the real terrorists and do things the would help. so for all these reasons we strongly urge that the administration take appropriate action to streamline the process these and that the cases of all of these people can be finally resolved. thank you. >> thank you, galen. barrett? >> i'm barrett duke, for the southern baptist convention's ethics and religious liberty commission. as you heard, we have about 16 million members in the united states worshiping in about 45,000 autonomous congregations. hundreds of those of our congregations currently engaged in refugee resettlement. they are currently looking for folks that they can assist to

get settled into the united states and help them assimilate as well into other communities. some of them are finding it very difficult to do that because these folks cannot get permanent legal status that they need to actually be able to really engage in life here and know that they are going to be a will to stay and it's becoming frustrating to a number of our congregations and certainly to less at the southern baptist convention as well. we support the goals of the real i.t. act and we recognize that there are real terrorists who have real intentions of farming and killing americans and others who support democracy and freedom. we recognize that and support the goals of keeping the terrorists out of the united states. but somehow those well-meaning

holes have certainly been turned on their head when you consider some of the people being caught up in some of the bureaucratic limbo that is coming on right now just you've got children who were adopted and forced to fight against others because they were forced against their will to participate in these activities of a sudden they are being labeled as terrorists and not able to get the protections of this nation is supposed to be offering them. you have doctors who simply provided a humanitarian service of a sudden being accused of being terrorists simply because they were fulfilling their responsibility to assist people who were hurt who they possibly didn't even know were terrorists you have groups who fought the government sometimes at the

encouragement of the united states all of a sudden finding themselves because they actually assisted the united states and its goals of democracy promotion and resisting the regime's being themselves accused as being members of terrorist groups. we just think this is outrageous that this would be going on and it's obviously the result of a bureaucracy that seems to have lost any idea of what common sense is and certainly has lost the ability to apply some level of compassion and concern about the folks being caught up in this bureaucratic limbo. i've gotten lists as we all have of people here who have been affected by this. here is say burmese gentlemen in the united states since 2008. he and his wife and son and

still he cannot get a permanent determination from the united states government on whether or not he is going to be deported or allowed to stay here. here is a burmese man who came here from a refugee camp in 2008 still wondering if he is actually going to be a will to stay. here is an ethiopian lady who came in 2000 still trying to find out whether or not she is going to people to stay. here is a refugee man who came in 2005, still in the same situation. it's obvious that the administration is taking too long to sort out the details of exactly what kind of questions need to be asked of these folks in order to help them even give them the opportunity to present their case that they deserve to be allowed to remain in the united states permanently. some of the folks are subject to deportation even before they get

to argue their case before the appropriate person in the united states administration. we believe this has gone on for too long and needs to be addressed immediately. thank you. >> thank you so much, barrett. you really encapsulated the alice-in-wonderland sense of the situation we are facing. wendy? >> thank you. im wendy wright with nation's largest organization for women and we seem to impact public policy with biblical principles and as americans, we, we believe that america is a great country and one reason why america is great is the foundational principles expressed in the declaration of independence that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. god created each one of us and placed us in families. knowing this helps us see the value in each human being and gives us the desire to care for those in need and their

families. christians are keenly aware of the inhumane persecution against and favored people around the world. we pray for and bring relief in a variety of ways to the disadvantaged and persecuted throughout the world. americans are incredibly generous to the needy. just look at the outpouring of aid whenever and wherever disaster strikes. this generosity extends to providing a place of refuge to rescue people from violent persecution or def. many of us are particularly sensitive to the plight of unmarried women refugees who are especially vulnerable to exploitation before they can make it to our shores and americans recognize no man is an island. our laws provide for these refugees immediate family members their spouses and unmarried children under age 21 to share in that refuge. that is because americans recognize how critical families

are for us to strive as human beings. our policies should not result in breaking up families, yet the bureaucratic limbo the refugees experience impact their families. in some cases their spouse an underage children are also left in limbo not able to join them in america while they are restricted from traveling overseas to be with their families. one mother was granted asylum based on her peaceful political activism with the right of the english-speaking minority. her petition to bring her children to join her here in the u.s. was placed on hold based on the dhs determination that southern canada owns national council should be considered a tier three group. by the time the dhs indicate it was reconsidering its assessment of the group, one of her children had died of illness. for some, the weight is so long that their child ages past

21-years-old and then it is too late to be reunited through these channels. in the regions of the world for which the refugees are fleeing for a wife or underage child to be separated from their husband or father places them at great risk not only of deprivation but of being attacked by their husbands or fathers persecutors. women and girls are especially vulnerable to raise and exploitation. but it's not only compassionate to finalize the status of the refugees and allow their families to be reunited with them. it's good for america to keep families intact. men who were married are healthier and enjoy more stable in plymouth, receive lighter performance raiders and faster promotions and are less likely to be victims of violent crime. women who are married are less likely to end up in property to be victims of violent or sexual assault and more emotionally healthy. communities with higher

percentages of people living in healthy marriages have higher rates of physically healthy citizens, higher rates of emotionally healthy citizens, high rates of educated citizens, lower crime statistics and decreased need for social services. concerned women for america is thankful for the people in our country who are extending help and hope to refugees. we just need the bureaucracy to come in line with congressional intent to make our intentions a reality. thank you. >> thanks for a much, wendy. michael? >> let me try to put it into perspective. the issue isn't whether we should or should not let people in. the rules have nothing -- they do not automatically admit to anyone with will. the issue is whether we give people the chance to prove what that they have a legitimate fear

of persecution where they are and proof under the highest possible standards they are not terrorists and pose no threat for the united states. that is the issue. the law we changed three years ago and this administration is just sitting on its hands about gave the way to stop the business of guilt by association you gave some food to some group which was affiliated with some group that may have had military resistance to a persecuting resistant there for you are a terrorist. that defied common sense and we had conservatives and liberals joined together to give weaver authority. the chellie administration stopped defining these groups, stopped creating this black left that says anybody who touches it

is defined as a terrorist and his family is defined as a terrorist and what has the administration done? they sat on their hands and they just let the size of this so-called tier three group grow and grow and grow and have done nothing about it. the issue therefore is not only protecting refugees, the issue is the rule of law, following the law, following the intention of congress. and again i want to see if somebody who is pretty hard core on this issue it only involves allowing people to prove under the toughest possible standards that they will be persecuted in their home countries and that they pose no threat to the united states. now, some examples. as some have mentioned, a gun and get stuck to somebody's hand and he is then forced to join a military operation or the washed

clothes of her rapist. before we amended the law three years ago those people were defined as terrorists. congress can along and set for god sakes, stop it, act sensibly. this administration for the most part has not done it. it's done a little bit in some cases, but in most cases it hasn't done so, and then you come to the ultimate, the so-called tier three listing. you heard the definition any group which is affiliated with some other group which may use the weapon in some context maybe 20 years ago is a group which if you have any tied to blacklist you and your family, doesn't allow you or your family to prove that you are not a threat to the united states in fact many people in the united states prove they were not threats to the united states. in this law