[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i'll go ahead and call this to order. i want to thank everyone for being here, and we have several witnesses today, and we're going to have a great hearing, and i want to thank everyone. first of all the commerce committee staff for pulling this hearing together, and we really -- they pulled together an excellent panel, two panel of witnesses.

one thing senator kerry and i were talking about is the senate is supposed to vote at 10:30, and based on senate time, we don't know if that means 11 or whatever, but we are supposed to vote at 10:30. at some point we have to swap the gavel back and forth and race and vote and come back. we'll try to keep the hearing going during that time. also, i know that senator kerry has really been a leader on this type of legislation looking at privacy concerns and has been working on a bill, and so we would like to hear from him in just a few moments on that. what i thought i would do is give a very brief statement, and i know that senator hutchenson is on the way and other senators are on the way. we might dispense with the opening statements for all the senators if that's okay, except i thought i might call on senator kerry for a few moments to talk about his legislation and then go on to the panel, and

once senator hutchenson shows up, we'll recognize her for an opening statement. as we start today, i want to welcome everyone to the commerce committee's meeting on consumer privacy. this is a challenging endeavor. we want to balance the free internet, you know, the ability to access free content for all users with concerns raised about user's priefty and -- privacy and joint information practices online, so consumers can conduct research, read online newspapers, write e-mails and respond to each other in realtime. some of them will be worried about how their information is collected online. some of them may be willing to surrender some information in exchange for the free content. others don't have any idea this is going on, so this is a real challenge. as many good things as we can

say about the internet and how it is revolutionized information and been so great in so many ways, privacy is an area that we need to keep focused on and try to balance these interests and try to make sure that it's a good place to be and a good place to conduct business. so, the first panel is the federal trade commission and the department of commerce. the second panel we'll hear from consumer advocates, technology experts, and members of the business community. their insights are valuable and very much appreciated. i don't know if everyone knows the polling data, but recently, common sense media published results that said 85% of parents say they are more concerned about online privacy than five years ago. 75% of parents don't think social networks sites do a good job of protecting their children's online privacy.

91% of parents think search engines and social networks sites should not be able to share kids' physical location with other companies until parents give authorization, so these are just a few of the issues we'll hear about today and that as the senate commerce committee and the senate as a whole and the congress as a whole moves through this, congress will try to work through these issues as best we can. again, senator hutchinson is on her way. we'll recognize her for opening statement, but until she's here, mr. kerry, do you want to say a few words? >> thank you. first of all, thanks for having in hearing. senator rock feller -- rockefeller wanted to be here but was unable, and thank you for your stewardship and leadership on these issues. i must say i was impressed by

the amount of energy. it was a hell of a social network in here before this hearing started. [laughter] a lot of chatter. as we all know, modern technology allows private entities to observe the activities and actions of americans on a scale that is unimaginable, and there's no general law of commerce to govern that surveillance, and that's why i intend, along with other colleagues, to propose one, a commercial privacy bill of rights. the purpose of the legislation, i want to emphasize is not to discourage information sharing, but rather to encourage it, but under a common code of conduct that respects the rights of both the people sharing the information and the legitimate organizations collecting and using it on fair terms and

conditions. now, i think the folks that we've been working with, many of them here today and the industries, know that throughout my tenure on this committee and now as chair of the communications subcommittee, i have worked hard to protect the innovation and open architecture of the net, worked hard to fight for net neutrality. i've worked hard to prevent taxation and other things, so i believe in this now vital resource for our country in so many ways. however, it is important to recognize that increasingly the american people have concerns and express those concerns. every single app that anyone of us applies to our smart phone or child applies to it is an observational opportunity for a private company, and

amazingingly, internet users collectively september 107 -- sent 107 trillion, that's with a "t" e-mail messages in 2010. each of those messages is a scannable entity for key words that indicate the interests or patterns of the people who send them. facebook started 2010 with 350 users and ended it with more than 600 million, almost all of which are sharing information broadly whether they realize it or not, and the collection and use of information offline from grocery stores to hotels to airlines has also reached record high enhancing the data businesses collect online. so, on the positive side, all the information sharing is generating e enormous economic activity, and we like that and

want that and encourages innovation, and we want that, but it also offered opportunities to those unwilling to abide by principles. the question should be asked, why should they? there's no law that requires they do. that's generated anxiety among americans in protecting their identity, protecting their personal information, preacing their habits, protecting the choices that they make which they think they are making in the privacy of their relationship to their keyboard and to their computer or to their phone or whatever instrument they are using, ipad, otherwise. people have asked, so what's the problem that this legislation would seek to solve? well, under current law, there are companies today engaged in a practice of harvesting information from websites and elsewhere and using and selling

the information without the consent and/or notification to people to which the information obtains. there's use of practices in gathering information that are not building privacy into the design of their services, and as a result, they lack the appreciate procedures and protections to ensure peoples' information is secured in being treated fairly. once a person's information is collected, there are no legal restrictions on the further distribution other than those that the collector chooses to impose on themselves. lastly, americans cannot today demand that someone's who's collected their information stop using it. each of the activities is a problem that americans are asking us to address. now, i've long thought that baseline privacy protections in law were sort of a matter of common sense.

over the last six months, i've reached out to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to privacy experts at firms, in academia, and the advocacy community with one simple goal to figure out why we haven't reached a consensus on the national standard for the treatment of people's information and what we can do to establish one. let me say a thank you to many people here today. there's been a very positive reaction to this, a concerted effort, the obama administration, the commerce department, others are working dill gently to try to sort of help mold and shape this, and i've been impressed by the cooperative atmosphere in which everybody is working. many of the companies that have rejected registration in the past have made massive investments in privacy protection for their own customers, and their own firms, and a fair share of them now

have chief privacy officers who care deeply about the issue and spent a lot of time thinking about it. these are serious people. many of them here, some will testify today, and they believe people's information is deserving of respect and protection, not just because it makes good business sense to protect your customers, but also because i believe they think it's the right thing to do and it's in keeping with the value system and ethic that we share here in america about individuality and privacy. the entire goal of the drafting process we're using to write a commercial privacy bill of rights is to win proprivacy and proinnovation experts over to the side of establishing a code of conducts so not just their customers are protected, but generally protected in the course of commerce, and i think we all benefit by that. i believe that gaining these allies depends on our

willingness to recognize and respect the obvious good that can come from appropriate collection and the use of data while also allowing for experimentation and flexibility in the implementation of privacy practices through the establishment of safe harbor programs, so we approach this with, with a real open mind, and i think people will acknowledge a fair amount of reasonableness and flexibility, but we can't let the status quo stand. we can't continue to allow the collector's of people's information to dictate the level privacy protection that americans get when they engage in commerce, and we can't continue to let the firms that provide no protections provide misleading statements in some cases about protection about a protection that they can change at will, at whim, at fancy, or allow them just to send the information along to others

without regard to where it goes or under what conditions that it goes there. mr. chairman, i hope we're going to establish clear and flexible rules for believer in our legislation -- behavior in our legislation, and if not, i think everybody understands that enforcement agencies are going to step up and react against unfair and/or deceptive practices with cases that will be built sort of individually as you go along with less clear direction than we could provide if we do this in a sensible legislative way. if we don't act, the world's largest markets will continue to impose on our innovators their own rules for private protection, and i believe those rules could end up being less flexible and less innovative than i propose. i look forward to working with the witnesses here today, and i thank you very much, mr. chairman, for allowing me to

make that statement. >> thank you. senator isaacson. >> thank you. i'll be brief, but i ran a company for 2 # years and did $1.2 million in advertising in various mediums to sell our product. we always picked the immediate yam can tv, radio, newspaper, or magazines to pick the medium we thought the most people would be potential customers for our product would go to, and that provided an themty for the customer and made me do a lot of thinking. what the internet and technology have done is allowed that anonymous information that was subject to analysis and guesses to become a potential commodity to be sold for purposes other than that determination, so i think it's a very appropriate time that the commerce committee look at this because of the expanse of the internet and the expanse of the information and

what's taken place in the revolution it's brought to american marketing. i look forward to being a part of the committee and work and look forward to working with senator kerry and others on the committee to find the right message to send and right road to go down. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. our first panel here, both of these witnesses, we have extraordinary bios and list of accomplishments we'll submit for the record, but i want to introduce them as the hob nocial jun d. liebrwitz. chairman? >> thank you, chairman pryor, senator kerry, senator isakson and thank you for your leadership and for the punt to be here with larry strickling

from the department of commerce. there's a longtist ri of cooperation, and we'll eager to build on that with consumer privacy and innovation. as you know over the past several decades, the ftc protected privacy through law enforcement, education, and through policy efforts. gist this week -- just this week, we announced our first effort aimed at abusive marketing practices. we charged a marketing network by offering consumers to opt out of advertising, but not telling them it vanished in ten days. a ten-day vanishing opt out is not only wrong, but unacceptable. consumers deserve meaningful control over what companies do with their personal information.

chitica is destroying perm information they collected. this case, it is the first of many more privacy cases, enforcement cases from us, should send a strong signal out online ad industry. overall, we have brought well over 100 spam cases and 30 data security cases over the last ten years. turning to the policy front, as you know, and really very much like this committee is what i heard in your opening statements sort of recognizing the real benefits of information collection, but also that the status quo is as you said, senator kerry, isn't acceptable, we released a report on consumer privacy in december designed to reduce burdens on businesses and consumers alike while ensure business innovation. it made three primary recommendations. first, companies need to bake in

privacy protections into all of their activities. we all that privacy by design. second, choices about privacy of personal data should be presented to consumers in a simple way, and at the time they are making decisions about that data. third, transparency needs to be improved, privacy notices need to be clear, shorter, and more standardized otherwise few people will read them. the common period on the new framework just closed, and we receive the 446 comments, they may be a record for us, and we expect to issue a final report later this year. to further the idea of simplifying choices for consumers, the report recommended a do not track mechanism. while that is familiar to the do not call registry that the government runs, we are looking to the private sector here to create a way for consumers to choose whether or not to allow their internet surfing to be

monitored. simply put, you should have a choice about whether third parties, all invisible to us trail us on the interpret as we shop or search for information about a medical diagnosis. this goes back to the point about the deanonymousization over the internet here in the last ten years of thinking about the internet. do not track gives all americans a choice about whether or not to be followed online. when data is protected, they trust companies in the market place, and that encourages growth and innovation. now, stake holders have responded very, very positively to our call for do not track. two of the largest browser companies, microsoft and mazila rolled out new mechanisms over the use of personal use of advertising. the industry is now demonstrated the do not track is feasible so the discussion turns to which approach is best. one promising effort involves an

industry coalition made up of marketing associations known as the advertising alliance. they developed an icon hoping to be deployed industry wide to display and targeted advertisements and links to more information and choices. for my part, i still remain concerned that the current proposal won't result in a permanent opt out for all ad networks and do you want allow summers to have collection of data, just the blocking of ads that go back to them. many of the alliance members want to go further, protect consumers, and my understanding, and it's in today's "wall street journal" as well, there's a group of more than 30 companies that wants to prohibit most types of tracking and imbraes the header, and so we're cautionly opt mystic -- optimistic this is moving in the right direction. i ask unanimous con acceptability for another minute? >> sure. >> i'm optimistic the do not

track or congress requires it, and sometimes it's easier for the private sector to do it, but we need to make sure do not track is not an empty slogan, but really works for the american people. there are five critical principles we believe should be included in any row best mechanism. one, it should be universal so consumers don't have to repeatedly make choices on a company by company basis. it should be easy to find and use. three, any choice offered should be persistent and not deleted if they clear their cookies or turns off the computer. fourth, not only on the out of -- opt out of advertising, but tracking all together. from my perspectives, i like targeted ads, but people need a choice whether or not they want to be tracked. finally, it needs to be enforceable and educative bout loopholes. we hope to continue to see the

private sector develop tools and american businesses will step up. we started to see this by applying the consensus principles from the report, privacy by design, transparency, and consumer choice working together with this committee, with the department of commerce. we believe we can make that happen. i thank you for this hearing. >> mr. strickling. >> thank you chairman pryor and it's a pleasure to be here to testify on the part of the commerce and i wok the opportunity to discuss how to better protect consumer data privacy in the rapid growing economy. i am pleased to testify here today with the chairman of the general trade commission. as the principle as provider to the president on communications and information policy, the ntia has been hard at work over two

years with secretary locke's task force, department of commerce, and colleagues throughout the executive branch to conduct a broad assessment of how well our current policy framework for consumer data is serving consumers, businesses, and other participants in the internet economy. i would also like to thank, in particular, the federal trade commission for collaboratuation with us in its leadership over the years in addressing this important issue. to guide the overall agenda, the gerund policy task force including issues in addition to privacy, we focused on two key principles. the first is the idea of trust. it's imperative for the stainability and continued growth of the internet that we preserve the trust of all actors on the internet, and nowhere is this clearer than the context of consumer privacy. if users do not trust their personal information is safe on the internet, they will be reluctant to adopt new services.

the second principle is that we want to encourage multistake holder processes to address key internet issues. we want stake hold res to come together to deal with the issues in ways that display the speed and efficiency that are lacking with more traditional regulatory responses. these two principles form the new pramwork for addressing online privacy that the department proposed in its privacy green paper last december. the key elements of this framework include the following: first, recommended the establishment of a set of fair information practice principles as the foundation for the protection of consumer privacy in the internet economy. these principles set a baseline of consistent comprehensiveble data private -- privacy context. third, address speed to privacy issues as they arise, the green paper recommended that the department engage actively with industry and consumer groups to

develop enforceable codes of conduct. third, consistent with the ftc's existing enforcement role in the protection of privacy, the green paper recommends strengthening the commission's authority to enforce the baseline privacy principles. we received 100 comments on the green paper, and we are working hard to prepare a time document later this spring as a statement of administration policy in this area, but as we i have reviewed the comments and continued discussions, i can report today that the administration now recommends that congress enact legislation to vieched a firm, legal foundation supporting specific aspects of the policy. we specifically recommend that any legislation to provide a stronger statutory framework to protect consumer privacy should contain three key elements. first, it should create baseline consumer data privacy protections. as senator kerry referred to it, a consumer bill of rights that

are enforceable at law, specifically, we support making a comprehensive set of fibs the basis of this law. this set of agreed upon principles state clear protections for personal data in commercial context in which existing privacy laws do not apply or offer adequate protection. second, legislation should provide the ftc with the authority to enforce any baseline protections. the ftc explicit authority strengthens its role in consumer privacy protection and enforcement resulting in better protection for consumers. third, legislation should create a framework that provides incentives for the development of enforceable codes of conduct and continued innovation around privacy prexeses. these codes can allow industry and government to adapt rapidly to a fast evolving online market place, and one incentive we urge

congress to consider is to give the ftc the authority to offer a safe harbor for companies that implement codes of conduct consistent with the baseline protections. this statutory framework designed to be flexible, keep the requirements well-tailored, and provide a basis for greater mobile in privacy laws. working together with congress, the ftc, executive office the president, and other stake holders, i am confident in our ability to provide consumers with meaningful privacy protections in the internet economy backed by enforcement that adapts to changes in technology, market conditions, and consumer expectations establishing and maintaining this consumer framework is not a one-shot game and requires the ongoing engagement of all stake holders and the department and administration are firmly committed to that engagement. with or without legislation, the department and mtia will continue to make consumer data

privacy a top priority. we will convene internet stake holders how best to discourage the development and the department supports the efforts to encourage global mobility by stepping up our engagement in international policymaking bodies, and we will continue to work with congress and all other stake holders to develop consensus on reforms to our consumer data privacy policy framework. i look forward to working with this committee on this important issue starting with answering any questions you have for me today. thank you. >> thank you. chairman, let me start with you, if i may, and that is in your opening statement, you mentioned this new icon that online advertisers are using. my understanding is that that just came online just in the last several weeks at some point. where are you -- are you encouraged by what you see or is it too early to know if that works? >> i would say we're encouraged

by what we are seeing. i would say -- i mean, the industry is working, and i think in good faith, on this sort of icon notion probably for the last two years. i think you'll have someone testifying on the next panel about that. i would say the pace of moving forward has become far more rapid sense the summer hearings this committee held and the energy commerce held in the fall, and since the report in december, so it is promising from our perspective. we need to see or we would like to see that as a commission or the majority of commissioners would like to see a do not track mechanism that includes a prohibition on tracking, not just sending ads back to consumers, but there are important developments really just in the last few days including a number of members of that digital advertising alliance that want to see restrictions on tracking except for fraud purposes, so, yes. >> thank you. mr. strickling, i saw yesterday or last night a story that the

white house is talking about a privacy bill of rights. do you anticipate they'll come forward with a proposal with a bill, or is this more just general concepts that, you know, we can expect to see from the white house? >> yes, sir. . .

fair credit reporting act and children's protection. is that volume by category proportionate to the number of complaints you get or is it just -- >> we keep a database consumer sentinel and that's one way and an important way to weave the to develop cases. there are other ways as well, and so we'd like to think when it's not a perfect symmetry but we like to think that it's in proportion to the sort of cases we are a very small agency so we try to limit of our resources. but we think -- will try to go where the harm is or is going and we think it's reflective of that, but i will get you some consumer complaints, but we also -- as you know as a member of this committee its something

you'll read about or a commissioner will, and that will go into the sort of investigative process so there's different ways we bring class is. >> exactly where all the scoring with my follow-up question. most federal enforcement agencies -- the cases they pursue our complaints from citizens. but you also monitored news media and reports and then follow up based on whether or not it appears to fall into your responsibility. >> we do, and we brought an important antitrust case because senator klobuchar raised the hearing maybe this was on the merger involving a drug used for children with heart defects and so it comes from a lot of ways as we are a very bipartisan agency and the commissioners have ideas about what we should be doing and it also is channeled into our enforcement efforts. >> where does the volume of

penalties, 60 million civil police, 21 million penalties, it looks to me like it's $80 million of civil penalties over the years. where does that money go come into the agency? >> treasury, that treasury, and more often we will try to get redress for consumers. part of the things we try to obtain in the financial reform legislation is the ability to get civil penalties for violations of the standard to the actor practice authority and it didn't make it into the final legislation. it was something caspar weinberger supported when he was the chair back in the early 1970's and we hope to come back and revisit that going forward. so we have limited authority that goes back to the treasury. >> i'm assuming based on what i've heard in the testimony probably the most effective way to protect the consumer would be to give them the mechanism to protect themselves. you talked about the icon you can just elect whether or not your information can be shared

or not. do we know technologically -- technologically anything can be done, but is that doable? >> yes, and the only question is about exactly which way to do it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator kerry. >> thank you. chairman leibowitz, i want to -- a lot has been discussed but the do not track proposal and i want to hone in on a little bit. is it your judgment that if a company comes up with a pretty strict policy which has brought privacy protections and adequate often etc., etc. and opt out or -- do you think then that the do not track is still necessary? >> at this point i think we do because if individual companies have individual practices that may be supported baseline consumer or commercial bill of

rights is a great idea it may not mean every company has that and i think what we are trying to do, like he was still a sort of baseline for privacy protection for consumers. so from my perspective, the do not track mechanism that is easy to implement going back to senator isaacson's plight it is easily implemented for consumers, could be an important trees mechanism for consumers and to protect privacy for consumers who want to limit tracking. >> so, in terms of the potential harm or protection which ever way you look at it and you're trying to provide consumers -- if you had a do not track, it doesn't mean that they are going to get no advertising like a do not call means you're not going to get any calls. it simply means you are not going to get customized advertising. but you will still get bombarded

by advertising. >> you will still get advertising. it may not be targeted. but from our perspective -- >> the analogy of do not call is not inappropriate one. >> yes, it's different from the not called. it's not government-run as we run the do-not-call list. >> so then is there an assumption there for that if you have a standard and a code and strong privacy that the tracking is per say that. >> we don't think the tracking is bad at all. we think the tracking we think most consumers won't mind being tracked. they get more personalized advertising. we just think consumers ought to have the ability to sort of out of that kind of tracking. just in the same way that, you know, the analogy we sometimes use is if you're walking around

the mall, someone shouldn't be sort of trying to tell you are not even if they don't know who you are and send an e-mail off to the stores in front of you saying that is john leibowitz interested in buying a jacket in his usual green and red colors. you know, you should have the right not to be followed around if you don't want to be followed around. >> so if a firm has a very strong policy, privacy policy and then he'll have another firm that doesn't have a very strong policy you're going to treat them both of the same in the context of the do not track. there is no virtue to having a stronger policy and therefore allowing the tracking to take place in the context of that stronger policy. >> stronger policy outside of the do not track may have been the virtues that provide privacy by design and include readable privacy notices and transparency and more choice. but my sense is that a lot of

the most responsible companies come my understanding supports the do not track notion for the third parties. so we think that -- i think there is an enormous virtue or benefit to having a sort of baseline fixed privacy protection and negotiated sort of negotiated industry code we are working with the commerce department on that. but we also think there is a value of having the ability to opt out targeted advertising or may be targeted advertising for sensitive information like medical surges or financial information. >> with respect to "the wall street journal" series on what they know i assume you follow that what did you draw from that? what came out of that in your judgment? >> a few sort of general things and some specifics. so, generally, what can out of

that and there were a series of stories as you know last summer and then follow ups. one is some companies have good privacy practices but many of them do not and results in an enormous amount of information being collected about consumers this invisible to consumers and not on the sites they are on but by cookies, software imbedded in the consumers' computers, and so it was a motivation for us to write our -- step up enforcement efforts and write our privacy report, and then specifically we are having a debate about whether to propose the do not track mechanism and one of the issues we had internally in the commission is is technologically feasible and one of the sleaze as you know was about microsoft having developed this balancing act they did and privacy advocates and engineers on the one hand and marketers and where they resolved and the sort of split the difference and so we knew that do not track is technologically feasible and microsoft through its credit

stepped up the concept. since our report. >> thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, when you talk of privacy it's in the same category as motherhood and apple pie in this country, and i think we have a real problem here because what most americans don't understand and frankly what may be on fortunately the members of congress don't understand is we have monetized the internet with the behavioral marketing.

it is an amazing amount of free information that is immediately accessible because of the beetle marketing. so i guess it equals money and so i guess my first question is does anybody know -- to either of you know what the cost is going to be in terms of the economic vibrancy of the internet for some of the things being considered? and is it fair to envision that they do not track in fairness and behavioral marketing is money isn't it fair to think some of these companies are going to charge for that? >> for opting out of tracking? >> yeah. >> we haven't seen that yet -- >> but we haven't passed any laws yet. >> but there is to their credit a group of companies that can be called the digital the advertising alliance in the process of offering some sort of a free of doubt. we think should go a little further but know what talked about monetizing debt and that

is a good thing and recognition also the business is understand if you put some limits on tracking or have privacy protections as the commerce department envisions we support and i am supportive of that you don't necessarily need to -- the sky would fall down on internet commerce, it's going to continue and if consumers have more trust in the internet they are going to do more business on the internet, too. semidey think there is division where we draw the line for the sample we would never dream of telling slim-fast they couldn't advertise on oprah, right? behavioral marketing. they know that there are mostly women watching that show and they know most of their product is consumed by women and so there behaviorally marketing to the segment. how will we draw the line between what kind of behavioral marketing is fair and what kind of the journal marketing in feeds privacy? >> well i think you raise an important point and i don't know if you are here when senator

isakson was speaking. he used to run the company they advertised and he pointed out that the distinction between -- there's a difference between advertising on the internet where you can kind of figure out things about people not from the classic personal information but from the aggregated enormous amounts of reformation and so it's different than advertising as you know, it's different than advertising on oprah or on tv and that seems to me that is a point where we want to ensure privacy protection for consumers and i think the department -- i will speak for that part of commerce, but i would assume you do. >> and i would add to the comment the chairman has made that in our discussions we find a very strong level of support among industry to create this baseline of protections. the baseline so it's fair to call the bill of rights. what we have in mind is not unlike the bill of rights, a concise statement of the right that the consumer has and than relying on industry working with consumer groups, working with

other experts in the field to come up with codes of conduct that provide more specificity. we think in that regard we don't have to see the government drawing some of these difficult lines and imposing them as regulation as long as we are providing adequate oversight of the process by which industry working with all stakeholders develops appropriate codes we think we can get to a regime that will greatly improve privacy for consumers and still meet the needs of businesses who want you to continue to see the growth of the internet. >> if i could follow up briefly you are right i don't think most american consumers understand sort of where their information is going and how it's been monetize and treated but on another bedrock level i think they get the issues of internet privacy. there was a poll by a group called consumer watchdog that of 80% of americans want to see a sort of do not track option. i think common sense media had a cold talking about as you

mentioned, talking about the greater concern parents have over their kids internet privacy and safety and so there is -- gal luft had told also that reflected this so at some level americans understand. >> i agree and i don't mean to cut you off but don't want to miss the boat and while i'm going to try to come back i just think we have got to be very careful about the unintended consequences. we know the good guys are going to try to do this right. we know the bad guys it's going to be hard to regulate them in a way that makes sense. but i don't want to do is handcuff the good guys because with all due respect, i mean, you know, if we think we are doing a really good job and consumer oversight as the commerce in this country right now, you know, i mean, don't get me started on the ads i see on cable tv i need to get my government benefit and all of things out there that are not being adequately policed so i just want to make sure we don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg under the rubric of a

very laudable notion of privacy. i think we have got to go very carefully and make sure we think about the unintended consequences and most importantly think about the bad guys that aren't going to pay any attention to the code of conduct and consumers are going to continue to not have confidence in the internet as long as they are out there so i think we have got to be careful and not go too fast, too far without thinking about what may be down the line. >> if i can respond quickly i think the proposal we have made answers your concern. it would have legislation that would create a baseline of these fair information practices principles and those are some of the things the chairman mentioned earlier like transparency and disclosure, what level of consent. i'm confident that if in doing so the congress also gives the ftc the enforcement authority to enforce that they are going to be about to go after the bad guy is based on that baseline but

with the baseline allows is the flexibility to the good guys as you call them to craft this more specific protection they need to have to allow them to run their business. >> i agree and i would tell you i have a feeling that, mr. leibowitz, your budget is not going to grow enormously over the next decade, and you've got plenty of work to do over there and frankly a lot of work needs to be done you can't do now and if we are going to add your workload and at the same time do something that is going to minimize the amazing things we've done on the internet, i just think we've got to make sure america buys into that agreement. >> let me interrupt here just for a second because this vote is about to close and the senator, we need to run over there and vote so what i will do is recess this for just a few moments, let us do these two votes and then we will reconvene in just a few minutes. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we will reconvene the hearing. i want to thank everyone for being patient with us and we had those two votes and my understanding is we have a few centers on the way back over, but i know senator klobuchar wanted to ask questions of the

first panel senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and i thank the two witnesses and the second panel but thank you, chairman lee lewis and administrator, it's great to be here with you on an important topic and i want to focus a little bit on web sites with teens and children may be because i walked into my daughter's room last night and she was webcasting with her friend and luckily they were working on their homework and the interview she is doing with senator murkowski which ensure will be devastating to senator herber rakowski, but i wanted to ask you a few questions on this, the recent wall street journal article examined 50 web sites popular with teens and children to see what tracking tools installed on a test computer. as a group used over 4,000 copies and other pieces of tracking technology that is actually 30% more than four found in a similar analysis of

adult website which is rather disturbing. i think that there was more of these being used on told friends web sites. can you describe your agencies experience in dealing with tracking of children and teens online and what do you think needs to be done? >> there's no doubt there is an extraordinary amount of monetizing team information. as you know, door bader i believe is a very responsible 15-year-old and i know from my children they spend a lot of time on-line, and so one of the recommendations in our report discusses sort of the need for a kind of enhanced consensus for children. but of course one of the other issues with teams is sort of often the act compulsively and put things online they never expect will remain. when a privacy policy of a social network switches from

something that protect privacy to something that has less privacy protections, sometimes kids don't realize or teams don't realize a lot of information they thought was private will be put on line so it's a very important issue for us coming and we are studying it. >> okay. thank you to read anything you would like to add, administrator? >> nope. >> as we talk about privacy, i wonder, chairman leibowitz, if the ftc looked into the issue of privacy notifications on smart phones as you can imagine those are smaller letters and harder to read it to the access the same type of information and also have the same kind of privacy concerns that other larger computer screens. >> well, one of our recommendations -- i believe in the report we look at mobile phones we've done a number of hearings on sort of mobile issues because you're right, in terms of privacy policies they are much harder to read in terms

of applications for children of course you wrote us about a particular application and we were glad to see the potential -- i shouldn't say the potential but the factors have improved their standards. these are all very important issues, and particularly in the mobile space. we are going to try to see how we can encourage more consumer choice and transparency and really, if you don't have so few people and so few children understand the terms of service and if you don't have easy to understand terms of service by children or parents you have a lot of sort of information that is taken from the kids and information that is placed on limit perhaps parents may not want their kids to do it or kids may not want to themselves or teams. >> i think what i would like to say in response to both of the examples you have given is the

fact that it's impossible for us to predict today with the privacy issue is going to be six months or 12 months from now and that is why the framework the administration is proposing for the legislation to use codes of conduct to the will be prepared by the stickle de groot it gives you the speed and flexibility to respond to these responsibilities when they arrive. if we are chasing after these issues and trying to write regulations and a more formal way that take a year to write we can't possibly stay up on the issues raised. this is further demonstration of the need to have an industry based factually false will testicle the process to work on these codes of conduct and to deal with these issues and indeed that in effect is what the chairman leibovitz and the ftc are doing on an individual basis assembling the parties to get them to talk about these issues and nudging them in the

right direction and i think this the appropriate model we want to bring forward. >> that is the name of the book, nudge. >> it looks like you want to add something but i wanted to follow-up on that. it would seem to me like just one of the problems as we know under the best circumstance it takes to get the laws done so clearly if you can get these voluntary codes of conduct that would respect the development of the technology and also not interfere in the development of the technology would be key as long as we get the voluntary codes of conduct. >> i wanted to check with our director to make sure i could say this we of multiple investigations going on of an adequate notice to mobil and kids, and in have apparently one of the investigations we are doing, the privacy notice on the mobile was 152 clicks or screens away so the reasonable consumer will not --

>> you mean if they wanted to find a privacy notice that a quick 152 times to get -- >> 151 or 52 because the first time you may not have to click. >> thank you for clarifying that for the record. [laughter] thank you to both of you and i appreciate the way that this is moving. i think it's the right way. thank you. >> thank you both there are several senators who had to either come and go or express an interest in being here and probably will leave the record open for a couple of weeks to allow senators to ask questions and we would appreciate quick response but thank you all for being here today but i will go ahead and introduce the second panel. >> thank you very much. >> we will go ahead and bring our second panel. and the staff has always will do a quick sketch here and bring the second panel forward with your name tags. as they are doing this, what i will do is i will go ahead and

introduce the members of the second panel and once they get situated, i will just call on them as we go down the row. first is eric anderson, vice president and deputy general counsel of microsoft. a second will be jon montgomery, chief operating officer of the group interaction. third will be ashkan soltani, said it will be barbara lawler, for intuit and last but not least will be chris calabrese from american council for the civil liberties union. so as we are getting set up here, and policy, water is getting poured and the charts are getting established just one

moment and we will go ahead and call on mr. andersen whenever we are ready. so, mr. andersen, go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman and honorable members of the committee, my name is erich andersen with microsoft windows division. finton for inviting me to testify today about the state of online privacy. we applaud the leadership the committee has shown on this issue. i also want to endorse assistant secretary strickling's call for federal privacy legislation. legislation can be an important component of a multi prong approach to privacy but also includes technology, tools, industry initiatives and consumer education. at microsoft, consumer trust is vital to our business and privacy is a critical component to running and maintaining that trust. and all of our service offerings we strive to be transparent about our privacy practices, offer meaningful privacy choices

and protect the security and the data we store. in my will for the windows division, i've worked with the software team to develop privacy enhancing features for windows and internet explorer. we have groups working on similar efforts throughout microsoft including for the search engine, xbox gaming platform and advertising services. the different ways you engage with consumers get a unique perspective on the privacy discussion. in light of our experience we believe a combination of technology tools, industry initiatives, consumer education and legislation is needed to protect privacy and promote innovation. let me briefly explain the importance of technology. at microsoft we've implemented privacy by design. we engineer privacy and products and services from the outset and consider privacy straub product life cycle. an example of where we to the principal is privacy features we've developed for internet explorer. most recent version of internet explorer nine was released this

week and offers a groundbreaking tool called tracking protection. the do not track feature allows consumers to decide which side can receive their data and block contant from sites they feel has engaged in trafficking providing consumers with greater control over their on-line experiences. we are proud the internet explorer was the first major browser to respond to the ftc call for the do not track mechanism to read we look forward to working with all the stakeholders to implement do not track tools in a meaningful way for the consumers and businesses alike. industry initiatives can be effective in complementing technology tools. for instance, we partnered with network advertising initiatives to the principles governing online the duralast for sizing. we are continuing to collaborate with members of the additional one advertising alliance and others in the advertising industry to implement guidelines and best practices to help insure the consumers understand and can easily opt out of the journal advertising to read the

third element of the comprehensive approach to privacy is consumer education. we agree with the ftc and commerce department that consumers need a better understanding of data practices. that's why we provide consumers with clear information about our own practices and offer choices about what data will be collected and how we will be used. we've also partner but consumer advocates and a government agencies to develop educational materials on consumer privacy and data security. the last critical element is federal privacy legislation. legislation is needed because the current sectoral approach to privacy regulation is confusing to the consumers and its costly for businesses. we believe legislation should establish a common set of privacy and security requirements that are not specific to anyone technology, industry or business model. in particular industries or business models, industry initiatives should coexist with or should build on top of the baseline obligations of the law.

online advertising is a perfect example. baseline federal privacy requirements around user notice control and security can complement industry initiatives and innovative technology tools. in conclusion, microsoft is committed to working with you to protect consumer privacy in a way that complements technical and industry based measures and promotes continued innovation. thank you for giving us this opportunity to testify today. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. montgomery. >> senator pryor, members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify. my name is jon montgomery, chief operating officer of the north american operations group interaction. groupe en is a world leading full-service media investment -- operation employing over 17,000 employees in 81 countries. mike clay answer some of the biggest brand advertisers in the world and advice british

advertisement for most effectively i believe the committee's examination should begin with the review of the tremendous benefits provided by online advertising. the internet has revolutionized our lives in an extraordinary and exciting way. advertising is the fuel for the internet economic engine. interspace advertising delivers the advertising based on the consumer preferences or and flowed from data and online activities. if the activities of just the user and the retirement terms and sports cars. , such advertisements or the random messages and the advertisers are likely to attract consumers interested in their products and services. we at groupm believe in protecting consumer privacy. it's not only the right thing to do, but it's good for business. i'm excited to share with the committee the work we've done to make sure consumers have both transparency and control to exercise their preferences in regard to online dever let for

sizing. groupm participated in the unprecedented industry of the leading trade associations and companies that represent response to the ftc's report that calls self regulation the literal advertising. the effort is being spearheaded by the leading associations that collectively represent the elements of the internet ecosystem. more than 5,000 companies in all. the ft reports the road map of the key elements that should be included in the self regulation including a transparency, who control and data security. major components of the program is the use of an icon that informs consumers the interest is advertising is occurring and to help create this icon, groupm mobus market leading advertising teams to invest the same designs market research on this icon as we would use for the fortune 500 clients. let me briefly show you had the principle works from the consumer perspective i can refer you to the door on my right. the net are simple and effective one-stop platform for consumers to opt out of having their

information collected and used for the duralast for testing purposes. consumers cannot delete all filled with a click of one button by all companies. in groupm and hundreds of leading companies are working to advance compliance in the program. two other major elements of the limitation for our education and enforcement. groupm has partnered with the internet advertising bureau on privacy matters of education, a campaign to reform consumers how they can manage their online experience and to explain how advertising supports the internet. to date more than 600 million impressions are being delivered as part of this campaign. finally, i want to emphasize companies will be held accountable for complying with the principles just as the ftc recommended. all of us and advertising have a strong incentive to maintain accountability for the consumer trust. the principals or enforceable through programs administered by the marketing association and counsel of the better business bureau. these organizations have

longstanding effective respective compliance programs leveraging to cover the principles. any company that claims to comply but fails to do so could face ftc enforcement for deceptive practices the program -- progress is an exciting the work continues. one of the major benefits of the industry's self regulation is ability to respond quickly to changes to technology and business practices. but simple, recently some policymakers raised concerns that the the clich for advertising purposes could be used as the basis for employment to help insurance. i want to emphasize these are hypothetical concerns that do not reflect actual business practice but nevertheless industry is stepping forward to address these concerns and expanding our guidelines to clarify in and ensure such practices are prohibited and will never occur this of regulated and principles are the guidance of the federal policymakers which strengthened our independent commitment to the consumer privacy uniform choice. as we proceed on the dialogue is important to avoid mixed

messages to consumers that could inhibit them from exercising the choice to the self regulator that's already available. we have to ensure there is a single standard to make it simple for consumers who do not want to add confusion to an already complex arena. i want to make it clear we are working with a browser companies such as microsoft and firebox and chroma who are part of the coalition to incorporate self regulation and do not track together. so in conclusion we believe the program creates the right framework that encourages both innovation and privacy bring the benefits to the online services and privacy protection to consumers. thank you and i look forward to any questions. >> thank you. mr. soltani. >> thank you. senator pryor and distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify about online consumer privacy and the state of tracking. my name is ashkan soltani

specializing in security on the internet. as a background i served as a technologist in the division of privacy and identity protection of the federal trade commission and was the primary technical consultant on "the wall street journal." i should note the opinions here are my own and don't reflect my previous employers. in my testimony will discard findings from my research about the pervasiveness of online tracking and the extent to which consumers can control unwanted tracking and conclude with a description of the proposed do not track mechanisms. the practice of using third-party services is common on the web today. i culver a study that we found an average of 123rd party truckers on the top 100 most visited websites. one site use roughly 100 different trackers that means when the user visits the website, 100 entities are notified of the visit. the reason online tracking is effective and raises privacy concerns is third party entities can monitor the user's behavior on multiple of related web

sites. in the study one advertising service to track the users' web browsing activity to approximately 90% of the website be examined read this company isn't alone in this reach. single social networking companies currently gather data across several million web sites. these companies have the position to infer a great more than the user's interest on sporting goods. the unique vantage enables them to collect the vast majority of the browsing activity. it's important point of online tracking isn't limited to desktop computers. little devices and smart phones raise privacy concerns because people always have them. application s and services running on the devices may have the ability to access precise location information providing third parties with a minute details about the user's habits. every major with browsing has a privacy enhancing technology that are not enabled by default and are often difficult to

configure. even when properly configured online tracking companies have consistently decides ways to circumvent their function. as a result the browsers and consumers are losing the game of privacy whack-a-mole. many seek to temper the privacy concerns by offering users a week to opt out of the be to allow advertising however the opt out typically only allow the users to opt out of targeted ads and not out of the undermining trafficked. i don't think this is what most consumers expect. following that not all companies engage in all my trafficking or offer an opt out. by my count only about a quarter of the truckers i'm aware of how existing opt out mechanisms. today's consumer mechanisms fail to provide users with meaningful control industries have been working to establish an easy-to-use tool to control the, tracking before to as do not track. separate but complementary approaches have been advanced and i want to discuss them in technical detail here happy to

answer any questions you may have about them. to conclude, online tracking is pervasive on the internet and an issue difficult for the users to understand even when they do realize they're being attacked in the contract there is little that can be done. consumers need more transparency who is tracking them on line, what information is being collected and how it is being used, shared and sold. there's a clear need for better privacy controls to prevent unwanted tracking in the industry isn't delivered. to be effective, privacy protections on line will require the technology and policy working in tandem. thank you for inviting me to date to be our hope my testimony here is helpful and i'm grateful for the committee has a technologist to príncipe gandy issues deeply technical in nature. i look for to helping the understand the nuances and make online tracking such an interesting and complex issue. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thanks. who's next?

ms. lawler. >> good morning and thank you for the opportunity to comment on the stick online privacy. - barbara lawler and i am the chief operator at intuit. i ask my statement be put into the record due to time constraints. >> without objection and will be. >> the mission is to improve people's financial lives both profoundly they cannot imagine going back to the old way of doing things. it is true for this mission we approach the current privacy debate. intuit izzie hillarycare corporation to their regulatory regimes in the u.s. including financial and health care privacy and privacy of tax return information. additionally we touch over 50 million people through the product. these people entrust us with the most sensitive data. the federal and state income tax return information, individual purchase transactions, bill payments and health information. business accounts including employee payroll, accounts

receivable, vendors list, inventory and other business data. as more technology solutions move to the cloud customers place more trust in us as we handle the sensitive data. at intuit with default data storage principles that express how we think about how we use the that and offer guard rails to guide our judgment. the central concept of the data stewardship as simple. it's our customers' data, not ours. we are and will be held accountable for the information entrusted to us. as you think about privacy legislation, we encourage you to consider four things. one, principles based approach, number two, focus on customers, never freakin' a data driven innovation and number four, global uniformity. first, we see the value and the incompetence of principles based privacy legislation. because we adhere to the various privacy regimes, this idea could work in tandem with silver to the three approaches, codes of conduct and best practices.

a principal based approach is not prescriptive but enables flexibility to offer data driven solutions with an existing sector specific privacy law. the principles based approach could shield a gap that exists between the different approaches while the same time lending with them. it's also more likely to be received and effectively adopted by all businesses of all sizes. it is more likely to be understood by the public it seeks to protect and the principles based approach is more likely to achieve consensus over time in the international context which will be essential to the global competitiveness in the emerging digital economy. such approach could set forth in minimum set of requirements for business and provide the fundamental core level of consistency for businesses and consumers. codes of conduct based on the context industry sector, technology platform and other data drivers would build on top of the privacy baseline. quds of conduct can serve as the free-market support for the regular receipts herber programs

second on any relevant data regime must be focused on the customer. at intuit, customers are the heart of everything we do. what we learned through extensive customer research is that it's not about what we think is best for business or what we think should be done it's about keeping what is important to the customer at the heart of the principles. third, responsible data used to foster innovation. consumers' expectations have changed as people are increasingly conducting their lives on line. the volume and complexity of the and the new world presents boundless opportunities to unlock a tremendous amount of data to create better experiences and products for customers. intuit's approach to data driven innovation is to irresponsibly use the data entrusted to us by our customers to improve their financial lives and products and services we provide them. last but not least, legislation must take into account the need for the uniformity among the

various privacy regimes. in developing privacy principles, they're needs to be the uniform approach. while so many laws and regulations are based on essentially the same principles, the multistate and multinational companies are challenged by the differences among them. the essence of the data stored should cannot rely on just one element of our principle that must be comprised of all of them combined. uniform principles based legislation, customers and innovation coupled with responsible innovative and compelling data usage. thank you again for giving intuit the opportunity to express its thoughts on this important subject. we look forward to working with you as you evaluate privacy legislation and to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, ms. lawler. mr. calabrese petraeus mix before, try and carry and members. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the american civil liberties union. we support comprehensive protection for americans' personal information including a do not track mechanism.

one of the new models of internet advertising has been to target ads adds a specific individual in order to make them more relevant. the result has been a system where americans are routinely tracked as they surf the internet. americans assume this is no central record of what they do and where they go on line. however, in many instances that is no longer the case. behavioral marketers, social networks and other on-line companies are creating the profiles of unprecedented depth and breadth that have the personal aspect of our lives including religious and political beliefs, medical information, purchases and reading habits. these profiles can legally be shared with anyone including offline companies, employers and the government. this data collection is neither benign or anonymous. individual profiles identify our mental health, sexual orientation or issues with wheat.

they may indicate particular volatility is. 92-year-old veteran richard guthrie was built out of more than $100,000 by criminals who identified him from marketing lessons. kate reid, the recent graduate has been identified by advertisers as concerned about her weight. every time i go on the internet, she says, she sees weight-loss adds. i'm self-conscious about my weight. i try not to think about it. then the ads start leaking about it. information that can be used for identity theft is on line but beyond our control. one reporter asked the company to search out the information on her arm only with her name and e-mail address she says within 30 minutes the company had my social security number. in two hours they knew where i lived. my body type, my hometown, my health status. nor individual web surfing had its anonymous. many companies now provide a way to directly link your name and

mailing address to your web surfing habits. companies know who you are on line. all of this information is available for sale with no control. a particular concern of course is the government access. many civil liberties benefits of the internet ability to read provocative materials, associate with them on mainstream groups, voice dissenting opinions are based on the assumptions of the practical anonymity and freedom from the government scrutiny. because of disinformation collections these assumptions are rapidly e routing. law enforcement routinely purchases access to offline private database is full of detail profiles on each of us with no legal process. they could legally do the same with on-line information. in fact, online and offline database is of personal information are increasingly linked. we have no right to access the same databases or control how they are used. solutions exist. the technology may be new but

the problems are not. congress and the states have passed many laws to protect americans reading habits and viewing habits and the offline world. more than 30 years ago the u.s. department of health education and welfare crafted basic privacy principles called the fair information practice principles the have become the basis for comprehensive privacy laws and many industrialized nations as well as specific sector laws in the united states. the department of commerce recently called called for adoption of the principles to the internet. we endorse the use of the fair information practices as well. in addition, the private-sector has developed innovative solutions like the do not track mechanism. these mechanisms need to be backed by the force of the law. we reject any approach that is solely on the self regulation by companies. self regulation by itself is a failed approach. it has allowed the current data collection practices to four . consumers want change.

surveys show 67% rejected the idea that advertisers should be able to match ads based on specific websites consumers visit. and 61% believe the practices were not justified even if they kept the cost down and allow consumers to visit plebiscites for free. ultimately if this information collection is allowed to continue then capitalism could build with the government never could, the complete surveillance online. without government intervention, we may soon find this internet has been transformed from a library and a playground to a fishbowl and that we have ceded the core values of privacy and economy. thank you. >> that's a pretty far reach. [laughter] it's a concept. i'm not suggesting they're reaching it's just a big statement obviously about the potential downside. it's just you, us and that's it.

that's all that's left. i'm sorry. [laughter] i want to probe a few things and then we will get you all out of here before too long if i can. so, mr. calabrese, you have sort of drawn this potential danger picture which is inappropriate to put in front of us, what's the appropriate response to that in your judgment? >> we've heard a lot of great responses to it i think we can begin with the do not track mechanism which again is that by law and gives people the opportunity to of doubt. it's not enough on its own. senator kerry, the principles you described, the devotee to give consumers control over their information is vital as well. do not track is a part of that but it's also about sharing information collected by the

first party. because i want a party to collect my information doesn't mean i want them to use it for everything. i may want to limit that. >> is there a balance here in your judgment? between the obviously very important interest in your high lighting and also the sort of commercial economic interest we all have in maintaining the viability needless to say regarding the enterprise. >> they're absolutely is a balance. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> there is a balance. mauney fear candidly is right now there is no legal protection and there's a great deal of incentive. americans are the date the two greatest businessmen and women of the world. give them an incentive and say there's an economic incentive to attract people on line and they will do a good job of it. so we need to put controls in place to make sure the consumer is part of the process. >> how far do the controls have to go?

if the consumer has knowledge, one of the problems is we have learned -- i don't know if i have the statistics here or not -- i don't think i do. we found hysterically when that people consistently say this is something i'm really super concerned about, but then didn't believe could tend to engage in practices on the internet that the line that a little bit. >> sure. i think part of that is the haven't had a meaningful choice at this point. it's been a sort of take-it-or-leave-it approach so it's hard to expect people to invest time and energy in something -- >> a lot of folks at the table would disagree they don't have a meaningful choice. >> sure, but the fact i can't point to the law that says i control my personal information

makes it hard for me to tell the consumer they in fact do have that control. the company's promise is are important, but not enough. >> anybody want to speak to that sort of to balance? >> i'm happy to speak to it. microsoft is obviously involved in online advertising and is also provides tools to the consumers to help them protect themselves from activities they may view as tracking and also spam and things like that as well so we are sort of like this in the unique position of having to make sure we are looking at both sides of the equation. the testimony i submitted we did provide some statistics about the incredible growth of online advertising and pointed out that it really is fueling a lot of the content available on the internet today, and i do think that is important to make sure that is kept in mind as things in the legislation. at the same time, consumer trust

is incredibly important to the company and we know that users want to be in control of the data that is collected about them and how it is used as well so we are endeavoring to make sure they have the tools available to them to make sure they are in control. >> what does that mean, tools available to them? >> what i mean by that, i will give you an example from internet explorer browser. we have a feature called trafficking protection we introduced this week with internet exporter and what it does is from the menu -- it's available on the product -- you can select the feature called tracking protection -- >> when you downloaded or do you select that every time that it comes up? is there an icon -- >> that's a good question. when you have installed the product there are menu items available to you to choose from.

>> is that initial installation because i know sometimes when you download something you have a menu of the initial installation. sometimes it shows up more than other times. it can be more bold faced than other times, you can miss them sometimes, i mean, how does it show up? >> that's correct. it wouldn't be part of the installation process. you wouldn't be sort of asked to choose among the different settings at the beginning of the installation process. when you do is after you install the product you would choose from the menu of different controls. >> he would choose to go to the menu or does it schwab automatically? >> you would have to choose the menu -- >> it would have to go to the men you? it wouldn't be like a privacy warning the initial warnings where you have to say i agree to proceed forward. there wouldn't be a stop -- you can't proceed forward until you've answered it? >> that's correct. >> so a lot of people say well, that's not really an in your face the choice. >> we understand the perspective

obviously. >> i'm sure that when you want to get somebody's attention you know how to do it. [laughter] we've been pretty successful lead doing that, yes. >> so does this rise to that level or does it not? >> it's a good question. i think that what we find is that people want to experience the full internet. when the use the browse our product. and they want to receive the personalization. to get by using the full internet. there are many people who want to have a choice and want to have tools available to them so they are easy to access the product. >> it's a question of how boldly is there. i mean, as you said, you know how to get people's attention. everybody does in the business. things keep popping up and you've got to figure out how to get them away sometimes and then

there are things that don't pop-up and you can't find or they are harder to find. that is at the center of this to some degree that there has got to be some sense of fair play and transparency and accountability and that. at what point on the user experience should you be affirmatively giving users the choice to make a decision. >> let me ask in this area and someone else perhaps. before i ask that question that we come back if i can intuit. you kind of, ms. lawler, about the principles that you apply and they are admirable, but terrific, and you talk about income tax, defender links come all these things you manage.

but isn't that a very different kind of relationship and business than some other businesses which therefore makes it easier for you to frame this kind of a we are going to protect you because in fact you're holding is the protection of the relationship with the customer. a lot of other people may not have that kind stake, you know, people can come and go as long as the traffic is sufficient and they are able to attract enough of what they are doing there may be as senator isaacson said, a sort of commodity value to the information they have that sufficient to encourage them there may be better economics on that side of the ledger ban on the other which encourages them therefore to chase that information rather than to be as protected as you are. and does that make sense on the distinction on drawing? >> yes, senator, it does. our customers' trust is critical

to us, and you talked about the sensitive, the nature of the sensitive information that we have come and the relationship we have with our customers is their using our services and products to manage their personal finances to manage their businesses online us we have gone directly to customers and ask what's important to them so while there is that sensitive information there are other aspects of the information with us that might not be if it was another company treated in the same more sophisticated way. ..

>> it's very clear that they really care about how their data is used. they want to understand that through clear, open, transparent explanations, and the more clear you are about that, the less they want to be fed with choices. what mattered to them is something that was relevant that related to their experience, so when we think about that and the principles-based approach, we look at what's flexible with our environment, but also adapted to other industries and businesses of all sizes. >> i appreciate it. i certainly have enormous respect for the concept that

data stewardship does that you or tick lateed -- articulated. putting that statement out front is a high standard. we have to figure out where that applies. mr. montgomery, you may have a different feeling. >> not at all, sir. i think an important question you asked earlier which is about very clear notice that information's been collected, so nothing that is hidden under, you know, under a men knew, and i think for the soft regulation program of which microsoft, by the way, is an important part has an icon on every single advertisement that collects information, so the billions of advertisements that collect information will have an icon on them which will allow consumers to click on the icon and tell

them who is collecting information about them. >> that's the icon? >> that's the icon in a somewhat expanded version. >> what's the chart underneath it? >> that's an example of an ad that's running at the moment, and if you see in the top-right hand corner, that's a provasive ad choices icon that consumers click on the icon, and they are told about behavioral advertising and one click they can opt out. >> does verizon get the action today? [laughter] >> it is not, sir. >> okay. >> we think this is the recycling logo and build consumer trust. >> how is that find its way to there now? is that a one-to-one relationship with veer verizon, or how does it work? >> we've rolled out the program to our client base. there's more than 100 major clients already subscribing and

client the have to give us permission to go ahead, and most of the clients agree with it. there's an underpinning technology reemployee that allows us to figure out who is tracking so that we can apply a compliance mechanism to the process so if an advertiser doesn't comply, we contact them and call them out publicly and ultimately, you know, that information is made public and -- >> consumer awareness about that or some sort of campaign to make people aware? how would you -- >> yes. >> get the word out so to speak. >> great question. in my testimony earlier, i talked about a campaign we developed with the internet advertising bureau called privacy matters. that is already had 600 million compressions on consumers to extend the campaign to teach

consumers about who information is collected, the importance of behavioral advertising, and the importance of having access to free content on the internet fueled by advertising. >> so do you still accept the notion that incidentally, i think it's a terrific step forward, and i congratulate you for it, but do you still believe you need a baseline law where there's a safe harbor from prescriptive regulation? >> sir, i think what we feel is very, very important in this process is that self-regulation is given an opportunity to work in this process, and if it needs to work with the baseline law, we're happy to cooperate with you in any way to refine and ensure compliance around it as long as the self-regulation can operate within it. >> but suppose -- i mean, if the fdc were to certify that program

or a similar program like that, and it's compliant with the fair trade of people's information, given the way the net works and the modern technology that's available and the low cost of collection and so forth, couldn't collectors of information outside of your program wind up doing a lot of damage broadly in ways that's inconsistent with what you said consumers ought to have? >> just to clarify, you mean data trackers who are outside the program? >> precisely. >> i think that there are bad actors out there, and one of the -- and we would absolutely support any way that we could uncover the bad actors who are doing anything to harm consumers. >> well, since our approach is

principles-based, basically, does that give you the latitude within which to be able to move? >> i think what's important is right now we have over 5,000 companies subscribing to the self-regulatory process, and in that way, we've got 5,000 policemen out there watching for the bad actors, and in fact, interestingly last week, we discovered some fraudulent practice on the internet, and handed it over to the fbi for further investigation, so -- and we hear this all the time amongst, you know, our member base where, you know, they are looking out for that all the time, so in summary, absolutely, would work with you any way we could to ensure consumer privacy and continued innovation. >> mr. anderson, we shared with you, with the company, you, the drafts, the current drafts, and

as of with several of you, and i'm wondering if you just might share with us your sense as to where we are in that process now. >> from our perspective the process is going very well. we absolutely appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the process. we see the drafting process going in the direction that we hoped for which is to establish baseline principles in the law that we think are reasonable and industry can and should be able to sign up for. we are very encouraged by it. >> appreciate that. ms. lawler, what about you? >> we also like the direction in which the proposal is going. we are generally supportive. we like the principles-based approach, the safe harbor. we look forward to working with you on refining the proposal as it was.

>> is there a major hurdle in your judgment? >> i would say that there aren't any major hurdles. i think where we would like to work with you would be on the level of prescriptiveness on certain areas on notice and contracting. >> okay. well, we look forward, obviously, to working that through with you. >> there's very much that we do like in the bill, the proposal, so we think there's a lot there to work with, and in particular, you know, we've talked a lot about today bad actors, and there's companies represented in this room that are high achievers, set very high standards, and i think what a principle-based approach outline in the proposal currently helps us aim at the large mass of businesses, organizations in the middle that may not have the

same level of resources or just expertise and privacy issues that you see at this table, and so principles-based approach using safe harbors as described in the proposal i think are a real positive mechanism to bring the large masses into a higher level of privacy protection. >> well, we'll work with you on that. i've been noticed they need me back in the office, so i got to run and do that in a moment. i think colonel gadhafi doesn't believe in that, so i have to go vote. [laughter] you talked thoughtfully about the first party endty and the third party interacting, and it makes sense, very logical, and

we get it, but we've been struggling a little bit with the cases where you have a first party such as facebook and facebook tracks behavior on another site, ect., and given that want consumer had a first party relationship with facebook, as long as notice is provided and choice is provided for facebook to acquire the information, is that a point somewhere in between the first and third party? we've been struggling with this a little bit. >> [inaudible] oh, sorry. that's a great questionment i believe in that context, facebook, so facebook is a first party and a third party. in the context when you enter facebook.com into the url in

your browser, that's the first part of the browser. if you're on "washington post" and there's facebook apps october gauge, that's a third party widget. i believe that falls under third party data collection. it's a little nuanced since then you're interacting with the widget. in the case where users knowingly interact with the widget. that could be a first party. >> would the notice be the first time when you first sign up, this can happen or notice occur each time, each page or how does it work? >> i believe since these things are tied to identifiers, i believe perhaps upon the setting of the identifier in the first party context, the notice could happen at which point that identifier could then -- so your cookie could be used to tie that activity to the third party

context. we have to be careful here around forced third party interactions so when you go to a website and a video plays, that an ad pops up that you dmais, you compel users require them to interact in the third party context. i think we still want to frame it around meaningful interactions with third parties that consumers are aware of, and we might consider that okay, and other past collections is considered third party collection. >> okay. we got to work that through obviously and see how we come out of it, but obviously some of this is, you know, does get into that nuance whatever you want to call it area, and it gets tricky. i think the principle we want to have guide us is also to do no harm even as we are protecting people, and i think, you know, we're going to try to balance that very, very carefully here,

so we will continue a thoughtful process here of engagement with all of you to try and danny has been doing a superb job of reaching out to everybody. there's a slight nepotism going on -- [laughter] but my brother over at the commerce department as general manager has been involved without my engagement at all, they've done this on their own, but i thank them for their input which is enormously helpful, and obviously we need to work to the administration to figure out where we're going here. i hope we can get a product where everybody is standing up and staying this is good. this is something we can live with, work with, and the consumer is really given a set of choices and opportunities here that they don't have today to make an intelligence-guided

selection as to where they are heading and what's happening to their information; and i think we can come out of there without upsetting the obvious commercial interests that we all want to encourage and that are important to us, so on that note, we'll adjourn here today and look forward to getting this thing into shape to get it enter deuced. i'm working with senator mccain very closely as you know, and he has interest in this as we go, but i hope we get to a point to introduce this in short order. i think we need to do it. i think we need to do it soon. everybody will benefit by doing this, and i look forward to getting this accomplished, so thank you all very, very much for being here today. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this past week, the house and senate passed a sixth short term spending bill to keep the government operating until april 8, and the house passed legislation banning federal funding of national public radio and cut a federal program providing money to foreclosured or abandoned homes. watch the debate online with c-span's congressional chronicle. there's time lines and transcripts of every session at c-span.org/congress. >> up next on c-span2, actor and writer, harry shearer on

hurricane katrina, and a discussion on the muslim brotherhood, a political movement in egypt. >> harry shearer was in washington last week to talk about his new film, "the big uneasy" looking at the devastation in new orleans caused by hurricane katrina. mr. shearer who is an actor, writer, and public radio host spoke also about the state of

journalism. from the national press club, this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, and welcome to the national press club ment i'm mark hamrick a journalist and party rt associated press. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programs, events such as this, while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national preth club, we invite you to visit www.press.org and to donate to programs offered to the public through our national journalism library and that information is on the website as well. on behalf of the members worldwide, i'd like to welcome the speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table guests include guests of the speaker as well as working journalists who are club

members, and if you hear applause in our audience, we note that members of the general public are attending, so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i'd like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. these are produced on the weekly podcast, and you can follow the action on twitter use l the hash tag pound npc lunch. i'll use as many questions as time permits. i'll ask you here on the table to stand up briefly as your name is announced and we begin from your right. dana ritter, white house producer for cbn news and the second baseman on the softball team. mike diegel is first baseman, there's the double play in place

there. matt friedman is one of my colleagues at the associated press as an online video producer and also a new member. welcome, matt. mark is public safety commune cases editing manager. spencer joint who is harry's god son, fresh mesne at georgetown university and a guest of the speaker. john is an anchor reporter and washington bureau chief of mother jones and an amist of msnbc. allisa, chair of the speaker's committee. skipping over the speaker for a moment. speaker's committee member who organized today's event. bill snyder former cnn political analyst now teaching at university and third way, a washington think tank. tim young is a freelance journalist and himself a working comedian.

he's chair of the national press club's young members committee which he's leading very well. rachel ray is viewer for the daily telegraph the london. charlie clark, another new member is a senior correspondent with executive government magazine, and now, how about a round of applause. [applause] >> those of you ho are familiar with the speakers here at the national press club probably now that the format calls for this to run and hour in length. this is particularly difficult and challenging today for the simple reason that getting through a proper introduction of the speaker, reviewing all accomplishments, accolades, and activities could take up the entire hour, but that would be not what you're here for. our guest is an actor known for the many character voices for the simpsons including mr. burns, and principal skinner, a regular cast member

on saturday night live and many movie credits include the right stuff, fisher king, truman show, and the mighty wind and others. he's an author, director, mew cigs, playwright, and a record label owner. he's a los angeles native, began acting as a child. it was then he got to know the great mel blank who did voices in his day as well. appeared in the pilot of leave it to beaver that morphed into eddy haskell. [laughter] true story. [applause] there was aplosioned on that. he wrote about the causes and aftermath of the 2005 new orleans flood. on this subject and others, he's a regular contributor to huffington post and made a feature eleventh documentary. i was fortunate enough to meet him last fall at a screening

here and that's when we discussed about having him today. other stories told about the hurricane's aftermath via online video were compelling. that are still there on the website at mydamchannel. as some of you know, one of my priorities this year is to use this series to focus on journalism. we did that a week ago, vivian shiller who at the time was head of public radio. [laughter] as we know, she's now resigned. some the topics have serious themes, we're all looking forward to enjoying the unique sense of his sense of humor, one of the many gifts our speaker is blessed with. give a warm national press club weekend to harry shearer. [applause] >> thank you very much.

good afternoon. good morning central time. i'm honored an delighted to have been invited to appear here at the national press club today. in fact, just to get this out of the way at the top, i adventure to say this whole occasion is excellent. [laughter] [applause] i do want to pledge to you that unlike another recent guest at the podium, nothing i say today here will be contradicted by one of my executives two days later in a video sting. [laughter] mainly because i have no executives. okay, i've ripped off and through back pitches, but now to the business at hand. first, as a new new or, my heart goes out to japan. ladies and gentlemen, as much as i was bewitched by comedy at an early age, i was fascinated and

seduced by journalism. i can remember at age 5 or whenever it was my parents trusted me with scissors, i cut out the mastheads for the section of the papers we subscribed to, the main criteria for whatever papers in l.a. were still publishing and were not the times. [laughter] when i came to be interviewed on tv, i confessed to my heabt of making my parents take me to the out of town newsstand in hollywood and for years our mailbox was filled with dailies from minnesota and other far flung locals. a couple days late, but it didn't matter. when entering college at 15, my first stop aves the the office of the student paper where i ended up assed senior editor. thank you. [laughter] the only source of pub my cation was if we had the job of putting

the paper at bed at night and worked in a print shop where the entire staff was comprised of what we used to call deaf mutes. my chance of the editor in chief role was destroyed by my refusal to disclose an aanonymous grad student whose gentle satire in fa ternty life ran on the page. i was suspected of being antigreek. [laughter] i watched cbs reports and david reporting and bbc world service at nbc's rivetting reporting on the revolution, riveted and moved by the slow dying out of the voices calling for help. i was and still am a news junky. this is all by way of explaning that what i'm about to say comes not from hatred, but love of journalism. i've had zero nasty news stories written about me. the only time i was in a tabloid

involving sex was all benign and all true. [laughter] details on request. [laughter] in short, no way am i here to bang the poor celebrity drum. i spent much of my youth around journalists. i like their smarts and dark sense of humor, and yeah, you're right. here's 100 paragraphs of but. in my mute i worked at the l.a. bureau of news week. no, i'm conflating them, but give me a break here. [laughter] you may have noticed news week listed my hometown z new orleans as america's number one dying city. i'm proud to report they honored the magazine as the number one dying magazine. [laughter] the fact of the story, one day while working at news week, i got a call from the life and leisure editor in new york asking for examples from around the country of what he called

rooftop living. clearly, this fellow had returned to his 53rd office after a somewhat interesting lunch, stared out the window, noted potted plants, and sniffed out a trend. [laughter] trends are what the editors had to sniff out before they were listed hourly on twitter, so i dutifully called the dean of health continuer traffic reporter, captain max who told me the obvious. son, l.a. has plenty of land, nobody needs to put anything on their roof. there were a couple exceptions including a guy, john b. zerlot who installed a swimming pool and columns on his roof. i interviewed him and said this behavior was exceptional in l.a., and then went off to cover a space shot. a few days later back, i got the

tentative version of the full story from new york. the paragraph with my quotes began. typically cutting edge, la la land virgins with rooftop living. [laughter] in those days, it was one of their favorite words. la la land was equally common and unforgivably usage. i called up a fact checker to remind her of my note. l.a., i said, was not filled with rooftop living. got it, she said. [laughter] following monday, the story appeared in the magazine, and la la land still urgent. i used to tell this just out of simple amusement at the way a story conceived in new york was a template, and we reporters on the ground were quote machines to fill in the blanks. nowadays it seems this behavior has, if any, spread to far more serious parts of the news hole

than the life and leisure sections, and with apologies, it's staying there. .. to sell new york and editors and producers on the idea of

turning around and looking away from this seeing the crowd of perhaps 300 people in the square watching u.s. marines during most of the toppling. new york wanted none of it. the iconic image was the story and any reporting photography which undercut its failures was less than unwelcome. quote, a visual begich kimber developed. rather than encouraging reporters to find venues, editors urged them to report what was on tv. the reporter in baghdad and oral history was published by the journalism review and recalled telling the editors they were getting the story wrong. there were so few people trying to put on the statute they can't do it to themselves. many people were standing hoping for the best but they were not julius. he also quotes the photographer who who talked with letters editors on the satellite phone. the editor watching on tv asked

why he wasn't taking pictures. he replied few iraqis were involved and the ones who were seemed to be doing so for the benefit of photographers. it was a show. the editors told him get off the phone, start taking pictures. the past few months we've seen something similar on the cables wikileaks as the plan assertion wikileaks don't a quarter of a million on the record. av the tragedy of the forest. and as those who can count will test its wildly counterfactual. last time i looked as 5% of the tables provided to the web site that had actually been published and that is a microtome. yet the data dump has become the complete and whether u.s. wireless buys juliane asange will conclude it then when you're finished with your editor

or producer is. then there is a little matter of katrina. as noted earlier ayman adopted were living in. when that was whirling across the gulf of mexico was a los angeles preparing to appear in a comedy film for your consideration on tv -- on dvd now. [laughter] i've got to do it. but in every spare moment and when you were acting in the film most of your moments are spare. i was glued to television, the internet, my own sources devouring the news google earth on my home calling friends to make sure they were safe. the day after november 6th i flew into the town were the only vehicles on the streets were humvees, the sidewalks were lined with tens of thousands of thrown out refrigerators and there was a 2-mile long city block wide three stories tall mountain of flood debris on the medium of the main boulevard on the once fashionable neighborhood. hot water had just been restored

to the french quarter. the daily mail service was months away. the weeks that followed the local newspapers and tv news broadcasts and radio talk shows were understandably focused on every detail on the city's near destruction and so they were filled with among other things constantly updated findings from two independent scientific investigations into the catastrophic flooding of new orleans. you probably remember the post-katrina proclamations that cnn and nbc and god knows who else were establishing bureaus in new orleans and the people assigned to those bureaus were good folks, people who made an imaginable to stress and suffering in horror in a modern, well, almost modern america economy. why then were the correspondence unable to pass on what we were seeing in our local media confirmed beyond dispute went to

investigations released the final reports both concluding the flood was a natural disaster did and made engineering failure for the greatest novel by the with the pulitzer people notice the one to prices for the flood coverage much of which focused on those findings. so answering my own question editors and producers of new york's all that ominous spiral. it is of a hurricane slammed into coastal mississippi where katrina undeniably it major storm damage. this all the windows of the high and low in the super dome roof damage and then the salles new orleans flood and they saw as everybody except president bush did, the video of the crowds at the dome in the convention center. but the facts together and the template was born. a city below sea level, poor black victims.

almost nobody at covered katrina was from more familiar with the peculiar geography of new orleans. i realized that on day one when i saw the cnn reporter on the street in the central business district beginning a stand up with the words i am here in the french quarter. [laughter] which then is now a quarter mile away. logistics had its own allure, the convention center were short drive from the offering the interstate ten. the largely funded lake view and brought more neighborhoods the one majority white the others next or further away spread out over confusing grid where parallel streets intersect. farther still the eastern suburban counties st. bernard parish at its entire housing stock 100% flooded out. its white working-class residents of the routes for four days without food and water in the searing heat but strangers didn't know where saint bernard was or how to get there. if they even knew it existed.

so the people live in st. bernard never worked on television. c level, dr. richard of the university did an exhaustive study and released findings two years after the disaster even now have of the populated new orleans that excludes the wildlife refuge and the limits is at or above the sea level. areas flooded into thousand fifer above below and at sea level and it didn't determine whether you still have a home or a pile of sadr and diprete perhaps with a drowned. in the attic. you're main guarantee of protection was maximum distance from the structure of the hurricane protection system. okay to the cause of the flooding. the two investigations had by eminent scientists and engineers reached strikingly similar conclusions pervasive design and construction falls over four and a half decades under administrations of both political parties and that so-called hurricane protection

system mandated by congress and assembled under the exclusive to destruction and control of the u.s. army corps of engineers. had the system and confidence to put together one of the authors from the report of uc-berkeley said the result of katrina and new orleans would have been quite different. quote, with ankles. by the time the facts from the public record the strangers had long since moved on the correspondence in the bureau's busy covering stores in houston and birmingham and miami almost as if the new orleans bureau was just the atlanta bureau downsized and moved to a lower rent neighborhood and the template harder to be carted to the globe and editors and producers ranked. in june of that year i asked brian williams why despite his obvious concern for the city his few worse still didn't know why new orleans flooded.

he told me this, quote, we just think the emotional stories are more compelling for the audience. and of quote. but by mr. wood's the stories is as old as william randolph hearst's first part on for an actress. [laughter] the tendency of the template to rule the facts even when the facts as in the case of the statute toppling or the city floating come from their own correspondence or from eminent independent authorities when the facts don't even require it extensive investigations but merely paying attention to the public record that tendency is only increasing in the face of dozens of daily deadlines and ever tighter budgets you can't fan a story for very long and when you come back as everybody did to new orleans for the fifth anniversary last fall there's now a corporate institutional ego involved in defending the template against the assaults of the information.

after all the networks, cable and broadcast read a time about the ball zenas of the katrina coverage. anderson cooper actually wide defender at senator larry mann mary landrieu's face. how do you go about retracting debose? were the templates not so powerful in shaping public understanding of major events the notion that the thousands of baghdad for toppling the statute of the tyrant serve as a metaphor for an administration's claim the invaders would be greeted as liberators by the time everyone realized the mistake able insurgency was going on. that completes version of the new orleans street and man-made disaster transformed and marginalized as a freak weather event happening down there in that corrupt town and manly victimizing poor black people meant a rapid withering of political will to tackle the real problem before the creator

of the disaster the reconstructed army corps of engineers had been handed $14 billion to do a bigger version of the system and we are learning some of the same false. it's interesting to note in that context no official or engineer with in the army corps suffered any negative consequences not even so much as a month of docked pay for causing this disaster. but that the head of the two independent investigations and the whistle-blower inside of the court has had very unpleasant consequences for standing that and being lonely. as republicans used to say during the clinton trauma, that is a good lesson for the children. and of course the template forged in this country influences coverage and understanding around the world. no less than the dtc service introducing the future of the reform of the new orleans police earlier this year led with the sense that said if the future

ran antonette intro hurricane katrina still tour through new orleans. it must have been the rooftop living. [laughter] the good news of what i'm saying is i think the usual debate about the mainstream news coverage can as the practitioners assume be dismissed as both sides most journalists are liberal most media owners are not so vaguely conservative. the far more come face if the vehicle pervasive or logistics of parachuting and asking cabdriver's what is the mood here? and of the templates formed in faraway offices or far more intractable. after all it isn't every fact and it probably can't ever be. a few months ago the state department source talked to "the washington post" about the problem of coping with corruption in afghanistan.

what he called the culture of impunity. when i need my dhaka and entry of the flooding of new orleans with a fund is the army corps of engineers that undergoes no meaningful congressional meaningful or outside oversight tends to repeat its mistakes at a higher price point. i can to conclude the court operates in its own culture of impunity. now back to the topic. journalists don't always shrink from criticizing their colleagues from the commission towards judy miller. but of omission of editors and producers faltering of facts that interfere with the narrative, the template they've adopted are rarely called off by colleagues. he needed public to fund his reporting on the statute toppling. aren't the producers on the news free repetition they were seeing on tv as culpable for misleading the country about the war has

judy miller? and i had to come over from the comedy world to tell the story of what happened in new orleans. anderson cooper still insists he's keeping them honest so where is the accountability? if i understand the system correctly readers and viewers are supposed to vote with their dollars and their remotes for the superior sources of information, market forces. so that means the very people for whom the template rob's information are somehow supposed to know what they have been deprived of and to enforce market discipline against the editors and producers responsible. you know that sounds like to me? like a culture of impunity. malae to gough my scrubs and reflector. i know doctor and i don't even play one on tv. i play an industrialist in manipulator with interest, but that doesn't seem relevant. [laughter] returning to the medical metaphor maybe i can diagnose

correctly i sure can't prescribe. if you ask me what i would suggest to solve the situation i outlined, let me point that out. except for certain lapses in the magazine writing in the documentary filmmaking i chose to leave journalism several years ago. that was my solution to the problem. some think it tells me it won't work systemwide. as to the larger situation, i do want to conclude these remarks with a cogent three what suggestion. release the hounds. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] thank you for that, a few questions from the audience as well as maybe a few that i would you guys on my own and we hope to have a pleasant mix of the to, sort of transparency offered for you. early this morning i was sent an

e-mail that alerted me about "the washington post" story which sort of wasn't necessarily a set up for today's speech, but it may be that some things in context particularly with respect to the timeline. and it talks about you going to capitol hill to sort of to the legislative piece i guess to this. could you talk about what that involves and what your hopes are and what kind of reception either you've had in the past and talking about as i describe a think the decommissioning the army corps of engineers. >> decommissioning is what you do it nuclear plants and not the federal agency. and you need guys with masks to go on the commission with. i'm not a lobbyist, not an activist, and a pacifist. not pacifist, pacivist. i like to sit at home and watch tv. [laughter] i have some people arranging some meetings with me on the

hill. some studied more than i have including a journalist who worked in this town who is now in miami, michael ramallah who did a five part series on the post in 2000 on the core. the core is the creature of congress. the way it is because congress likes it that way. the court in its civil projects here in this country, not its military projects is basically a year martyrdom institution so congressmen appropriated for its positive project coincidently in the district and the core builds them, the court is now been hollowed out to the extent they don't do most of their own work so private contractors are engaged so you have the sort of iron triangle of contractors who give money to elect congressmen, they get corps contracts, everybody's happy except the recipient of the project. me personally, i am delighted to go to the hill and talked to

members, the personal opinion from the body in the comedy world, i don't think anything is going to change until serious effort is expended by the executive branch. as a mix of the documentary has been out, i don't know, about five months? >> it was shown for one night. >> so, the substance of that material has been released for the public and now i guess you are going to engage in a series of screenings around the country. what type of attraction do you feel that essentially this thesis has been gaining. >> close vantage point so far because of what i was talking about in my remarks. the designer of, you know, the major media of new orleans, we were there. come talk to us, we have an interesting story, the other side of what you've been pointing out the last five years very many took the bait. ryan very kindly made a remark

in passing on the panel of meet the press about the film but didn't say much about what it contained. katydid nothing. diane did nothing, the npr did nothing. the cbs did a nice piece on need to know. that's about it. this isn't a career move on my part. it's changing the country's awareness of what happened to the city and also this isn't just orleans as we point out on the film. the court doesn't single out the orleans -- more than 100 cities in the country where the core has levee systems that are protecting them. several of them know they are in trouble. dallas, they've been told that the levees were built on sand.

sacramento california is well known inside the course not in the area the levee system is not in the greatest shape and sacramento sits on the water system so it's going to be a big story when that happens i would make plane reservations now. >> who are the reporters you admire -- and they are putting it in plural, and who and what user organizations are getting -- i think jon has good to erich some good to stuff. those are the guys that won the pulitzer. there's also a local newspaper,

weekly in new orleans that does good work. >> see you talk a lot about and the movie depicts this about how the congress isn't in the way the you view it to sort of set up at the appropriate intermediary for the american people and policing this problem what about local and state officials in new orleans and louisiana? we hosted governor bobby jindal a couple of years ago and he was certainly very vocal i recall after the bp oil spill about some steps he thought should be done. what is your view of how the locals view the problem and what should be done. >> it got a good tv time during bp, didn't it? >> the problem as locals can scream and shout, but the core has the exclusive statistics and over this and was given by the congress and the congress

mandated the building of the system after hurricane betsy. the corps has something else going for it. in 1927 congress passed to the past the flood control act which gives blanket immunity from any legal consequences of flood control projects and that's why there hasn't been a race to the court room following the flooding of new orleans because in most cases lawsuits have been thrown out because the court has blanket immunity. there is only one case it is preceded. interestingly, they're has been a little bit about it in the national press and both the times and post wrote about the verdict when it came down. a federal judge wrote the corps was criminally negligent by failing to maintain and navigation canal that built the mississippi river for the majority of the flooding in st. bernard parish and the lower ninth ward. that can to try only because that was the navigation project and was not covered by the flood

control act. wife wandered away from your question. i'm sorry. >> i forget what the question was. >> the response of locals. >> so they scream and shout. >> thank you very much that is, the way in the wake of the disaster a remarkable amount of civic action in the post flat period if new orleans. people in new orleans refer the levee district, the reform the tax assessor's office and reform the district attorney office and the dillinger of heavy lifting to reform the city government. that's what the to do. they couldn't make the core just to take one example in pos a factor safety to speak for caution for the levee system as high as the factor the core uses

for the lambs. that is one of the problems is the core has a much lower factor of safety for a levee system that is supposed to protect a major metropolitan area than for the dam in the middle of nowhere. this cluster knows more about the spread to the subject that i'm able to. what do you think of the corps working in channeling the mississippi river. >> the channel of the mississippi river is almost the classic work successfully. in terms of the task the set for themselves they accomplished it really well. the mississippi river levees have never failed at least in the new orleans. they've been great in new orleans. it's done what they have set out to do. it is a classic corps success

story in that there have been on told on intended - consequences that the corps has either been oblivious to or lead to arrive at. as for example when you live via the mississippi river, you prevent it from flooding. well, that is a good thing. the flooding of the mississippi river distributed every spring, flood water and sentiment over the delta. building the coastal wetlands, the most fertile home for seafood and other creatures of the environment. when you leveed the river began starving the wetlands and they begin shrinking and you have the first ingredient in the longer disaster involving southern louisiana, the erosion of the coastal wetlands. why is that important aside from if you like shrimper i remind

all of what lands between the gulf of mexico and the city of new orleans backs down hurricane ferocity by an unknown quantity, the wind coming over water as the wind over the land they lose energy, they lose the wetlands and one of our major protections. furious been a questioner asks how has the community responded to the documentary? >> iso people in new orleans knew this stuff. so i was startled. the picture was supposed to play for one night and played for weeks and the major local radio talk-show host, i saw him and watching the movie the first night and he couldn't sit down steam was coming out of his years. you're going to be on tomorrow the whole three hours. everybody has to see this movie. people have been startled i think they didn't know the story of the whistle-blower.

>> was in the day to day trips and drafts, and nobody had ever before coming and put it together into a 90 minute package and in a way i felt badly because last year was the first year of what everybody around town of thought of as the end of the post-katrina period. we've gotten over the post-katrina period and were now in the new era. we have a new mayor on the super bowl, the city was almost levitating until the bp oil spill and we are not as safe as we think we are. >> writing in the first person, i truly appreciate your informed opinions and stands on the new orleans media but do you feel that more or less say more or fewer celebrities should be voicing their opinions on issues of the day and i guess for the

question of if you look at the news media in general you could as the broad question of do you think it is succeeded on entertainment too much as well? >> charlie sheen come charlie sheen come charlie sheen come charlie sheen, charlie sheen, charlie sheen. [laughter] thank you. [laughter] [applause] charlie sheen, charlie sheen, charlie sheen. we could go that way the rest of the hour. [laughter] look, i'm very careful. i was scared when i made the documentary because the guy from the simpsons was talking to me about engineering? really? i need to pay to see that so what i say is not my opinion. i have no opinion. i have no basis in the opinions. i go to people in the movie and in my life who know what you're talking about and our leaders of the investigations of the whistle-blower jon barry, the author rising tide, the seminal book on the 1920's flood i pay

attention to what they say and distills so i can understand it and then when somebody asks me a question that's what you get. the bill and i walked fastest past one was we to college was the engineering books for god sake let something ruboff. the good news is these people i mentioned who were in the film and in my life to some extent are really good communicators and teachers and made it clear to me needed comprehensive to me so i can turn around and i'm not an opinion leader. i am a passer through. as to whether celebrities, and other celebrities around like anybody else. it seems like they know they're talking about, they should be in the public sphere and maybe have a moment of attention, if this increase in and out of control and don't know they're talking about the should get hours and hours of prime time covere.