hear crazy people than seen people with -- sane people. >> they charge to secrecy people so we are the same folks. >> the same question as a follow-up to the last one asks are you concerned that any repercussions of taking a political stance and i suppose on the reset in the audience was your entertainment work. >> well, the simpsons is kind of on its own. i don't think that i'm hurting it by doing this. i hope not. i try to make what i'm doing in this context non-political in the sense non-partisan because i think both parties bear the responsibility for what happened in new orleans. the president of both parties have now clearly sent a signal they are not going to lift a

finger to prevent what happened from happening again so it's easy for me to say don't once i get mad at me because i'm not picking on you. i think one reason, and i'm speculating here, so this is, you know, you can ignore this as comedian opinion. one reason the story of new orleans aside from the habit of mind i pointed out in my talk hasn't gotten the traction and i have is the very fact that both parties have their borut in the water. neither side gets any political juice out of saying it's their fault. and that is what makes the system both politically and journalistically you can't get a democrat and republican george elon the cable news it's your

fault and no, it's your fault because it's both their fault. >> you're doing a tour with of the movie now. tell us where that will be and how long it is released on dvd. >> it will open on dallas on friday night. i got to sit in the seat that lee harvey all is what sat when he was arrested, so my butt is in history. and we are opening up around the country throughout the spring and early summer. thebiguneasy.com home page has the list of where the films showing in theaters around the country, and then we will make adc -- dvd and all those initials and will be available on line and maybe even on cable if they've got room for it although hbo said we've done in

new orleans. >> obviously people want to talk about your creative work a little bit. i will have to talk about that a little bit. one person says you said you think the simpsons has declined in quality. could you just address that. is that true obviously some episodes are better than others. where does it stand now? >> owls it tecum -- the was a private communications link to "the new york post" owned by rupert murdoch who also owns the simpsons in advance of a salary renegotiation. [laughter] it's a wonderful show i love being part of it. [laughter] >> how does fox tv react to being locked on the simpsons? >> they love it. rupert loves it. powerful people. cindy love the humanizing effect

of persuading the public that they have a sense of humor. i'm reminded of george w. bush talking the the search for wmd on the radio correspondents dinner. when i personally see powerful people showing off their sense of humor i hide under the bed. but that's just me. no, fox is fine with it and rupert is perfectly fine with that. they think it's great for business. >> at the 1992 republican national convention president then h. w. bush said we are going to keep trying to strengthen the american family to make them more like bill walton and less like the simpsons so 19 years later the simpsons has numerous books and even college class is, i guess it is in its 22nd season now how do you think the simpsons reflect the american family or does it? >> i will take that question and move it a little bit to one side because of an observation i would feel better making an observation than some conclusion

based on my limited knowledge of american families. when the simpsons started we were roundly criticized by christian groups in particular. bart is a bad role model they said the lead comic character of any show is a good role model 15 years later i played both ned flanders and reverend of lovejoy, a total coincidence, and i found myself being interviewed for cover stories in christian magazines discovering after 15 years this was the only show on american prime time television or a family regularly went to church and christians were members of the cast. with that told me is it took an awful long time for certain

people discover the actual shape of the elephant. >> the customer says my son embraced the philosophy of bart simpson in the sixth grade and still embraces it at age 28. [laughter] we don't know if he's at home or not. >> what do you attribute that remarkable longevity? >> i think that you fit him well. [laughter] you mean the show? [laughter] welcome a first in all honesty, the fabulous, fabulous backing. [laughter] seriously, i will mention to factors that i think don't get recognized often enough. number one, i would invite you to look for half a second if you

can at any of the major or minor animated shows on television in the last 28 years. and i think maybe two of them visually tell you in half a second would show they are. i can think of ren and stimpy and the simpsons. i think it was his genius he couldn't draw very well. he said that himself, and he adopted this very iconic style. he chose the color yellow which was the closest he could come to flash and he just chose the drawing style, visual style for the show that is immediately recognizable that in the modern part branded on first and every site. and secondly and more significantly i think again, not very well-known when fox first put the simpsons on, fox is a fledgling network to say the least. you may recall it was almost the

uhs channels and you would put a wire to improve your reception. it was important for them to have the legitimacy of having a well-known hollywood talent aboard and jim brooks, had a wonderful movie career and so he had the leverage to be able to say we will do the show, no network interference, no creative interference by the network. and so, for 22, 23 years, starting the 23rd season, they're has never been a time as far as i know coming off and on the meetings, but as far as i know, where the network has told couldn't mr. burns be just a little bit less evil? up the reading a little bit? that doesn't happen with us. >> the culture loves and in eletes success. other television networks would try this little technique but i remember four or five years ago

adc was having a down period and then programming chief of abc was speaking to the advertisers of the front luncheon and talking about the new schedule we have a great slate of shows and we have a whole new layer of networks of provisions to ensure and i said great, that will do well so so much for emulating success. it's been a as a writer yourself or you ever tempted to work on the script or have you? >> no and no. i've been tempted, but the television lighting process is not conducive to me to the way that i like to write. i like to write with maybe one or two chosen mutually selected collaborators. the process dictates that you will be collaborating with 16 people that you may never have met before in a room with a lot of cold pizza. and something that has your name on it will probably two-thirds of it be written by somebody else.

so it works great for the show and it's not what i chose to do. >> the question about can't brought in on the simpsons. >> yes, sir, ed brockman in the house. >> who did you base hammill? some one says he reminds the right of the question a bit of how word feel, the anchor man in the end work and what goes through your head when you act as him? >> well, what goes through your head is supposed to be what goes to the character's head so in his case it's nothing. [laughter] >> to ec. i kind of based in -- we were talking before -- we started here about marks last name and the fact that in the years past there were a number of people with similar names interim the local news around the country about the brothers, and i guess a little bit of one of another of the hambrecht rub off on old kent.

it seems to me that there's a little bit of him and everyone of us. [laughter] >> and god bless you all. [laughter] >> with all of the projects you have worked on in your career which have you found the man most rewarding? >> surely you don't speak financially. this is final. [applause] it was four guys sitting around thinking of an idea banging on doors all over hollywood getting a succession of rejections, finding one fluke that allowed the film to get made in a company that didn't want to release it. we just kept hearing the guillotines slam behind us as we skipped the platform having become adopted by generations of audiences have been the scene

becomes same people who told us know we don't want to make your movie, the same individuals come running up after those eight years later and offer money to make a sequel and getting the same to say no to them. [laughter] [applause] >> i think it's really loved the movie. did you not say on the david letterman that wasn't it true that that is what people actually ask you to do most is allowing the movie as opposed to something else? >> it's sort of different. i can never tell, people ask about the spinal tap, up some sense, about my radio show. the good thing about having the career is it keeps you on your toes because people come up to talk to you you can't anticipate it's going to be the same thing over and over again. i should say the of the reward is that we actually got -- have been able to play nationwide and worldwide and don't let anybody ever tell you it isn't fun to play dumb music loud.

[laughter] >> someone asked did you write the songs either a mighty wind or spinal tap? >> yes, michael mckean and i wrote a lot of the songs and we all wrote the songs on a spinal tap and rollin and michael and myself were writing the songs for that movie that was part of the fund. the fund was the was a movie we got to make start to finish, totally handmade project we were all involved in every facet and as opposed to being part of an industrial process which some big budget movies are being part of a hand me the process as well i love that. >> i settled in the introduction, did mel really play a role in your ability to come up with characters? >> probably by osmosis. >> i work on the program for eight years, and mel blanke was a member of the cast and had a son the same age as me and so it

took a fatherly interest. i should point out in modern america not a fatherly interest as in the catholic church fatherly interest. [laughter] shiastan nine week paternalistic interest. but it was never a matter of he said here's why do bugs and here's how i do porkey. it never got to that level so it was just being around a genius like that something rub off may be. >> stay here. before asking the last question a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of for the audience and you i would like to remind you about our upcoming luncheon speakers. the next one will go from humorous today to the dead serious april 6th and will be the commissioner of the irs. >> ah! [laughter] >> we will make sure you were out of the building. [laughter] >> april 19th, ted turner and t. boone pickens. turner will discuss renewable energy, solar projects across

the nation, climate change. mr. pickens will address the crusade to reduce the nation's dependence on opec which he regards as a threat to the u.s. economy and the national security. now -- >> ask both for money. >> we could use it. >> and our tradition here for every guest speaker is our truly token way of saying to you to present you with a traditional npc coffee mug. thank you very much. [applause] and our final question of the day and that is we talked about him earlier, it can to block and were here with us today how would he have reported on your speech? >> the simpsons ignores what most people to hear about. details in a minute. [applause]

-- before all for coming today. i would like to think the national press club staff including the library and broadcast center for helping organize today's event and finally as a reminder we can find more information about the national press club on the website if you'd like to get a copy of today's program check it out, www.press.org. and we are adjourned. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

each and voters went to the polls on saturday and approved the constitutional changes of the country gets ready for parliamentary and presidential elections leader in the year. next a discussion on the muslim brotherhood movement which was once outlawed in egypt. speakers include a former middle east specialist with the cia and a former counterterrorism analyst. the foundation for defense and democracy hosted this 90 minute event. >> [inaudible conversations] good morning everybody. i and we will get started. br early but i think most people are here. my name is cliff, and the president of the foundation for defense of democracy. i want to welcome you. to the experts breakfast briefing. easy for me to say. this morning we are going to discuss the muslim brotherhood.

its ideology, its goals, strengths and egypt and around the world and the challenges posed to the u.s. foreign policy. he's the muslim brotherhood secular heterogeneous violence, as they did right al qaeda as the perversion of islam. as you know, these are the descriptions of james clapper, the director of national intelligence provided to the congress recently delighted that he's ronald all accounts but i always attend these with an open mind. >> this briefing is part of a series here at fdd to have a productive, thoughtful and yet civil conversation about the pressing international development and challenges and crises that we face. we are honored to have with us today representatives from the u.s. government from the diplomatic corps with and tanks in town and other people from the policy community.

most viewed farda shah for the defense of democracy created just after 9/11 to do research on terrorism and the ideologies and the regime and movements of organizations that drive terrorism and help develop policies to defend america and the west than those who have declared themselves as enemies those who support do not agree on everything. they do agree on at least three fundamental principles no one should be denied basic rights including minority rights, women's rights and religious freedom. free and space nations have the right to defend themselves and an obligation to defend one another and terrorism, the deliberate use of violence against civilians to achieve political objectives is always wrong and must never be condoned. we note that this event is on the record. our moderator this morning is my

colleague dr. jonathan vice president for the research. the fdd. he's the author of several notable books among them hamas versus fata, the struggle for palestine and he's the co-author of the newly published palestinian polls for policy makers can learn from palestinian social he served as a counterterrorism analyst the u.s. department of the treasury, he will send a doctorate from king's college london and he documented the history of the united states congress and its efforts to combat terrorism. let me remind everybody of c-span here please turn off your cellphone or at least put them on vibrate and i will now turn the microphone over to jon who will introduce the speakers again. thank you and welcome. thank you. and think to everybody for coming today. >> we are of course what facing profound change across the middle east. i think the initial conversations we've had here at

fdd have been prompted by the changes that we have seen in egypt, the fall of hosni marrec began the discussion of what extent the muslim brotherhood could possibly take power in egypt but egypt is not the only country we are watching from home bought rain where the muslim brotherhood is watching eagerly with it is to be some reaction from another muslim brotherhood groups seek to gain power and then of course even in yen to become yemen we are giving the collapse of the government and the rise of the party. so we are seeing not only the traditional muslim brotherhood in egypt but the potential branches taking power across the broad middle east and so we brought several experts in today to talk about egypt and the

global muslim brotherhood and what we might be able to expect in the future and certainly what we should be looking at in terms of the u.s. foreign policy. so, to my right is the senior fellow here, he is a former specialist at the director of operations and author of three books including the forthcoming god man and a ballot box. pardon me, pardon me. he has worked at the american enterprise institute and the project for the new american center and publishes about everywhere from "the new york times" and "washington post" and weekly standard. he was educated at johns hopkins university of edinburgh and the american university in cairo and princeton. then we've got tom joselyn who is also a senior fellow here at fdd. he's the director of the center for law and counterterrorism and the senior editor of the journal. in 2006, began an extensive

review of 10,000 pages of classified documents from guantanamo bay and he's created a database and since published more than 100 articles on current and former guantanamo detainees. tom is also the author of iran's proxy war against america, a monograph published in 2007 by the claremont institute that details the sponsorship of the sunni terror networks and recently, put together a tremendous white paper on the muslim brotherhood for the senior legislators and it's been circulating around capitol hill and we are now in the process of turning that into a monograph and we hope our discussions can perhaps influence that final product. then finally to my far right is lorenzo. he held a fellowship at harvard university kennedy school, u.s. institute of peace and the fletcher school of law and diplomacy. a native of mullen italy he holds a law degree from the university of montreal school and a doctorate of congressional

relations from the school of law the policy. he is the author of the new muslim brotherhood in the west published by columbia university press in the fall of 2010. so that's the panel for today. the way this will go is we will ask each one of our panelists beginning with lorenzo to speak for about five minutes to cover some of the fox they have the muslim brotherhood and its recent rise in the middle east and some thoughts they have about what we are seeing after everyone is done we will open this up to a broad discussion, and i would ask now to just remind you that when you do have a question simply turn your life like this and i will make sure you get a microphone as it is being recorded. with that again think you very much for being here and welcome. we will start with lorenzo. stat thank you, jonathan. it's good to be here. thank you all for coming. let us start with the latest development. we had an important referendum

on saturday and according to most analysis the results for the brotherhood. the yes vote for the constitution will lead to a vote within the next six months and that will according to most analysts be the only to established forces. now, whether the egyptian vote for yes is more of an emotional desire for the immediate change of whether they favor the brotherhood that's the table. i would argue the former rather than the latter. but despite that there's no question the brotherhood activists and victory on saturday will be playing an important role in the egyptian political life and future elections that is fair to say. and i think the brotherhood understood the dynamics within

according to the people i've talked to, their campaign for the vote didn't focus on the two big cities where you walk around most of the slogans you see composters milward si were for the pro-democracy forces and the no vote but the brother of focus on the provinces and pro-democracy forces that are prominent in "the new york times" and during the last are not that prominent so that is telling and how the brotherhood knows exactly what its constituency is and where its strength lies. i said the brotherhood will have a larger role. let's try to play devil's advocate and see what could be the problem the brotherhood will face with six months from now. the problem in the sea in the

brotherhood as an almighty monolithic force is that it doesn't take into consideration some that do exist in the brotherhood. it's unfair also to overplay them but it's not questionable there are some divisions inside of the brotherhood and that for a long time the glue that at them together is the mubarak sentiment, but as things progress it is not unreasonable, i'm not saying it isn't likely that it's unreasonable to think that they will develop in different ways and i think the first big difference is the generational that exist and i would decide the brotherhood in the three generations. we have the old guard, the people who suffered persecution under the 60's people who were in jail, and there are the 60's, 70's and 80's last bush, it's

the still control the organization. we have a second guard which is the people who become members of the brotherhood in the 70's. they joined during the university in the 70's and the brotherhood and donelson for the persecution of the 60's and they speak the language of human rights and democracy and of course the debate on how genuine the stock is is never ending but at least they do talk of the game what put it like that. then we have the third generation, 20 something, thirtysomething to some degree. and this generation also weighs more in line with the most part at least the second generation. so there are flips.

some of them are simply power struggles and personal. the criticism is the first generation doesn't allow the second and even more the third generation to play a role in the group. they are tactical. we saw the differences between the third generation that wanted to participate in the protest movement and the first generation that at least at the beginning was very reluctant to do so. and i think to some degree there are ideological. as i said, the second and third to innovations take approaches that at least publicly are different from most of the first generation. ..

whether law should need vetted by a certain body of sharia experts. on this issue the position of the third generation dominated. this is going to play out in different ways. it is not unreasonable to think we saw that in the past with the party. will be gone that direction? we don't know. the third-generation controls the levers of power, but there is some at least some discontent within the second and third-generation. the second that is completely disconnected, i was trying to make an elegant connection but apparently i can't. was about the global muslim

brotherhood because there is a lot of talk about it and not a lot of clarity about it. whether it is an organization or not, what is the muslim brotherhood globally? i think it is fair to say that there is a body that does exist but that body doesn't really have the control over the activities of the different options, branches, call them what you will. i think it is fair to say that in some 70 or 80 countries throughout the world including the west, including the united states we have organizations that place their origins and have personal financial organizational and mostly i would say ideological ties to the muslim brother head in egypt and other countries. most of these organizations operate independently. there's no question that there is coordination. there is constant coronation we see it in different activities where groups toe the same line.

they work on the same issues. they have the same talking points. nevertheless each one is better position to understand the local dynamics or the local environment according to the local dynamics and achieve their goals. there is a global vision that is very similar but it would be unrealistic to think that they brotherhood in yemen would have the same tactics and goals of the brotherhood offshoot in sweden. the reality is completely different. this network i think is looking at least to turkey has a very very important model. there is no question that the akp it has become at least publicly sort of the model for a lot of these organizations. we see that is pretty much brotherhood particularly and indonesia and egypt given the

developments. what are the reasons for their success and they are claiming that the way they want to turn tunisia and egypt and other countries pretty much follow the turkish model, that is at least the public. that is feasible to some degree. we might want to do that but i think there are significant differences when people talk about applying the turkish model to egypt for example. i think there are significant differences that make me a bit skeptical. the first one is the enormous difference between the egyptian and turkish society and the turkish experience with democracy and secularism which has not been existing in egypt and the second is that the akp despite all of its flaws and unquestionably -- is never at fault in the '90s and the way,

moved away from the old guard. the egyptian muslim brotherhood is not done that. we are still in a way 15 or 20 years behind the turkish revolution. so that i think where he see the big difference between egypt and turkey. i am probably pass my five minutes so i will stop there. >> thank you. i come at it from a little bit of a different perspective. i come at this as a terrorism analyst who basically builds biographies of terrorist. that is generally how i approach things. one of the things i notice very early on in my research which has been very intensive for more than a decade now is that you see over and over and over again the roots of terrorist to trace back the brotherhood and that goes right to senior al qaeda leadership. that goes right through many of

the participants in the 9/11 plot. i can give you down to details one by one who was actually a muslim brotherhood member -- member prayed to becoming involved in 9/11 and that is not specific. is across the whole swath of the modern terrorist problem we face is a very good reason for that which is that the muslim brotherhood and its founding was very specific about embracing the notion that muslims should love death more than a love life and the common refrain above the brotherhood leadership believes to this day. if you think of the power that idea back in november of 2009 when major nut don went on a shooting spree at fort hood this powerpoint presentation surface in one of the things on the slide is a muslim should love death more than life. that echoed immediately to what hossanah bonnier began saying all the way back 80 years ago and that is really a constant i

would say in which the way the brotherhood approaches things. in the west it is interesting. this is not a due discussion about the brotherhood and whether not the brotherhood is something that can be approached and engaged in a diplomatic way. it is a discussion we have had many times and i want to give you one quick example of what i think is very illuminating from that perspective which was back in the early 1990s that wes was looking at trying to see if we had a partner in the muslim world that we could reach out to in this happened in the u.s. and throughout european countries is sort of an intermediary with the muslim world and one of the characters many in the west settled on was a guy named to robbie. he was a very prominent figure in the international brotherhood movement, one of the most powerful movements. he got invited and went and saw pope john paul ii in rome. he got on a private plane and flew there. he had tight security. he was embraced and invited here to washington and talk before

congress and talk to many think-tanks here. he was very eloquent and a guy who spoke in western terms. he spoke about democracy and spoke about women's rights and spoke about trying to embrace a new approach for the brotherhood's ideals and as all of this is going on at the same time you sitting down and shaking hands with pope john paul ii pope john paul ii he is asked of the number one bin laden and he returned to ms. terrorist incubator where the modern al qaeda as we know it first came and was born. that i would say is very stark example of what you are dealing with here and what you have to careful in terms of understanding so it is you are dealing with in these movements and you are dealing with in the brotherhood. a lot of the brothers internationally and agree with lorenzo that there are definitely fissures within the brotherhood movement both internationally and with that in different branches but you have to be mindful of who actually is controlling the power of the organization and the old guard, the first guard in egypt is the one who is controlling the organization there.

so let's talk for second about the old guard and egypt. this is sort of the model that has renounced violence. well, is very clear if you actually read and just try and bring in as much as their writings in discourse as you can come he can see very clearly that is a tactical position. they renounced violence in egypt itself because they basically had their heads begin numerous times by them a mark -- mubarak regime. the idea that they have renounced violence as a whole or jihad as a whole is completely false and there is a lot of ways you can show that is false. first and foremost the egyptian muslim brotherhood is one of the principle sponsors and principle backers of hamas, which of course is one of the premier suicide bombings organizations on the planet so when somebody says to me that they are non-violent the first thing thing i say is our suicide law makes non-violent? of course they are not. when you look at their discourse on iraq, they have pledged their

support for terrorists in iraq and said it is perfectly justifiable to go there and blow up american soldiers but then they actually when you look at what the brothers say, and it includes civilians in iraq as you know to them who is the truer civilian? they are all part of the military complex of a justify suicide bombings in iraq. when you go to afghanistan they justify suicide bombings there. it goes on and on and on so when we talk about the brotherhood renouncing violence we are talking about a limited tactical area where they have done so. meanwhile their ideology and sort of what they are pushing for overall and have pushed for since 1928 is incredibly similar if not wholly the same as al qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups. to go through the ranks extensively i spent the last several months in the last 10 years doing and looking at what they believe in there is really no difference in terms of the long-term strategy of what they want to do. are their short-term tactical disagreements?

zawahiri has written a critique in the brotherhood to participate in democratic elections but if you know so here he is criticized a lot of people publicly because he has maintained is also violent jihadist brand. he criticized the iranians publicly. he sent his daughter there for connections to other words you have to be careful how you deal with these public rhetoric on these issues and all that is to say there are many more common similarities between the brotherhood's ideology and what the global jihad is movements all about and the idea that non-violent is both false based on its own rhetoric, false in terms of its functions and faucet in terms of how it finances jobs organizations and something you have to approach very carefully i would say. this isn't to say there aren't elements within the brotherhood who are different or disagree. i'm sure there are as any human organization can tell you. is cliff said at the beginning even ftd is not a model and their people here that disagree on various issues. al qaeda when he came to 9/11 there were disagreements in the military committee so you have

to put the disagreements and context in terms of who is wielding power and the ultimate thing for mayville to test for me when you are talking about the brotherhood is a very simple question, our suicide bombings non-violent and if of course they're not non-violent what are we talking about when we say the group is non-violent and that is the first i would like to get across. >> thank you time. that is a first-time ftd has been compared to the global muslim brotherhood. [laughter] >> i do it all the time. >> i'm going to focus very briefly on what i think egypt will look like if the muslim brotherhood does well. and my good friend e. brahimi often says he thinks the brotherhood in an election will probably win no more than 15%. i don't know if he has changed this usage going back to egypt. i think it is likely, i would be

surprised if the brotherhood won less than 25% and i would not be astonished if it were to win as much as a 40%. and then you have to say well, what will egypt look like? the one thing i think you can say is that with the brotherhood is not going to be is it is not going to be the islamic salvation front and algeria. now we don't know a lot of what the islamic salvation front was going to be in algeria because the military aborted the entire democratic process once it became clear that the islamic front was going to do fairly well. but the one thing we do know is there were prominent members of the islamic salvation front who actually openly were in favor of using democracy to essentially abort democracy. one of the two most prominent members was pretty explicit and his disgust to say for democracy

and everything that democracy brings he said it's very clearly that democracy and the holy law cannot cohabit. now this is not the case in egypt. in fact it is quite astonishing to see the extent to which the brotherhood has sorted default from that simple formulaic of ali -- i think the situation will be a hell of a lot more competition. that is not to say it is going to in any way, shape or form escape what i call the holy trinity of democratic expansion in the muslim world which is anti-semitism, anti-americanism and anti-zionism. wherever you see democracy grow mocks muslims you are going to see those three forces gain speed. that is i think an inevitable part of this process so i think you'll certainly see that in egypt if the muslim brotherhood does reasonably well well enough to become a big factor in egyptian politics.

now what that means practically is certainly the brotherhood will make a play because this is where they, all fundamentalists view this as core mores of society. they're going to make a play for personal status law. they will try to ensure that personal status law in egypt is essentially sharia bound. now, actually in many ways that won't be that great of a change in egypt since sharia law in most places is already the dominant law for all personal status. so we are not -- for a lot of folks that is not going to be a big change assuming they can get it past. i don't know if they can get through an egyptian parliament. it all depends upon the numbers they get and the pushback that they have. obviously this will be a significant change for minorities because i suspect the

brotherhood because it is a modern organization will not revert to a traditional view of these things are all personal status for cops to be governed by the church. i think it is sufficiently nationally experienced to say it will apply turbine including minorities. i think it is highly likely that the muslim brotherhood will push very hard for a renewal of the treaty within israel. this will get very complicated of course with the military, since the military in egypt is in great part -- and they make a lot of money from that peace treaty and they make a lot of money from bright star military exercises in egypt and they don't want to see that money go away from them or their family members. so you were going to have quite the attention however i think it is highly likely the brotherhood will push for a revision of that

treaty nullification of the treaty because it is simply anathema to them and it will be interesting to see where that goes. i suspect the brotherhood will actually have not an insignificant level of support from secular parties in egypt, so it is possible that you will see that treaty nullified but again, it is going to be one hell of a ride because the military is going to i suspect pushback quite hard on that or see if there is some way they can arrange a deal with the united states that the treaty is nullified and they still get their money. so we will have to see where that goes, but i am sure they are going to go in that direction. i would expect the brotherhood to go after alcohol. muslim parties always do. i would expect them to go after

the life in egypt's little resort and many resorts and in his private clubs, which if you haven't gone to them are really quite something. i don't know what progress they are going to make there. that is an interesting question and in turkey for example erdogan went after alcohol. he was beaten back and he was defeated, at least in istanbul where of course everyone is devoted to forms of alcoholic entertainment. their success elsewhere in turkey in the provinces has been greater but then again it must be said that in the provinces the prevalence of alcohol always there has always been less than places like istanbul and its mayor. so i think you are going to have a big push there. you will see the brotherhood

without a shadow of a doubt try to go after the united states whenever possible. i think you will see them also whenever possible, to go after israel to demonize israel. i would suggest to you there that that is their position, it is not all that different from the position you currently have in egypt. you have got to remember that all things in life are evolutionary and that the views of the brotherhood has towards egypt actually -- towards israel aren't that different from any of the views you find easily expressed amongst secular elites which can be quite vicious, quite nasty and anti-semitic towards israel. you can definitely be absolutely certain that hamas and gaza are going to become big issues inside of any egyptian parliament. this will go hand-in-hand with

the discussion of whether the treaty should be nullified. i do not know how that is going to go. it is going to be one of those great debate moments inside of each of. all i can say and i've said this many times, and i think it is a valid point that if the treaty survives, in egyptian parliament where the brotherhood and members of the secular elites are adamantly opposed to that treaty, but the treaty nevertheless wins in an egyptian parliament in that treaty has real force. it has the type of force that it never had with a treaty signed only with a dictatorship. so we will have to see where that plays out. i am skeptical that the brotherhood is going to be able to maintain the same type of unity. i would agree with lorenzo. i think it will be very difficult for them to maintain the type of unity they were able

to maintain under the brotherhood. this is not to say one wing of the brotherhood will break off and turn into something that most of us could esteem. i sincerely doubt that, but i think the pressures inside of the brotherhood are quite real and i see no reason why if democracy, if the votes continue to hold a see no reason why the evolution of the brotherhood will not be similar to the evolution that we have seen elsewhere in the islamic world whether it be in iraq or i think most importantly and iran. parallels are interesting. iran is a special case because you actually have theocracy and i actually think the marriage of democracy in islam is going to create a much more complicated situation, so the secular profound secularization that you have seen in iranian society

under dictatorship is probably going to be less in egypt that openly embraces democracy. the position of islam will actually be less threatened in egypt bennett has been threatened inside of iran. you are likely to see a more vigorous defense of islamic values in egypt then you have seen and iran though i must caution that on the democratic side of the ledger in iran you have seen people of profound faith defend islam and democracy quite powerfully and summon like -- one of the great theologic the illusions of our time a real revolutionary figure i think has led the way for folks and people like an exiled in the united states which is probably the most eloquent clerical ida shows the power that can happen in fact in

people of devout faith marry up with democracy and you start having astonishing -- where the holy love begins and democracy begins and ends. these debates you will see in asia. there's there is no question about that and i would just suggest those are the debates we want to see years ago. we didn't see them 40 or 50 years ago because military autocracy cut the debates up. you stop having an organic development in the middle east because military secularizing military dictatorship stopped it they killed it dead and what we all hoped for was going to be the evolution of ben added turkish model and the arab world never developed. that is he didn't have the eventual evolution of an autocracy military dictatorship and the more liberal democratic society. turkey is not a liberal democratic society but -- progress which i don't think by the way despite his worst

efforts is going to be a will to reverse. but the key here is that now you were going to have those debates. you were going to have real debate between people of devout faith, between islam is with extremely repugnant views between liberal democrats. they are going to go at it and we will see who wins. that is as i said, it is not clear but i would argue that that process is not only unavoidable but it is essential if we hope for these societies to actually one day become more liberal. >> thank you very much for three very interesting presentations this morning. i actually have a technical question to begin with here that i'm hoping one or maybe all of you can answer. we know that the brotherhood right right now in egypt is creating what they call the freedom and

justice party. what does that mean exactly for the brotherhood? obviously we know the brotherhood is based out of egypt and now they are creating a party that looks like a lot of the other parties that exist around the region whether it is the islamic action front. are we going to see fissures between the broader brotherhood movement and this party? will there be a firewall? can you provide any color to that? >> that is a very difficult question because we don't know cusack and we didn't get a straight answer about the information of the party from the brotherhood at the very beginning. no we are not interested, yes we are interested in as we are filing and again doublespeak could be partially because of doublespeak just because different answer to a different audience. it could be because there is no one voice of the brotherhood. we don't know cusack we who calls the shots and they themselves don't know exactly who calls the shots.

it is often said the people we see in the brotherhood are not necessarily the people who actually have power so somebody is not the most important person in the brotherhood. i think also there is a large cross-section of the brotherhood that has not been interested in politics. but more and dawa grassroots activity. you see that dynamic in egypt and many other countries including in the west where you see parts of the brotherhood that is deeply political and wants to be engaged in the political process whether to hijack it or not can be debated that others would simply say that the brotherhood should we like al-banna in the very beginning, something that focuses on providing islamic knowledge and politics is something that they brotherhood should concern itself with and i think you have a lot of people

who are the people that built the support for the brotherhood in one way but that are not that interested in politics. >> can i comment on that? all i would say is that movement which the french nicely labeled neal fundamentalism, it began because they really didn't have an alternative. you got out of politics because politics, you ended up in jail and you were tortured or you died. so neal fundamentalism which aims at a society of change in society, changing mores was an outgrowth of dictatorship. we don't know whether it will continue to put -- focus on that when you do have a political option where you can express your mores politically because you know islam does have advantage in that, was to say they have greater clarity on the issue and what you believe your mores should have clinical

overtones. we in the west have sorted defaults beyond that where we hold our deepest values to not necessarily have any political relevance. >> is interesting because we are interested on the point on the no other options. the key point here which i think is missed is that a lot of a west discussions of brotherhood treats al-banna as a distinct entity until he later led the organization and is widely known to be the intellectual forefather of al qaeda. if you study al-banna carefully you realize he was not in non-violent dawa. he set up a secret apparatus for violence in egypt that a red -- led to one of the islamic terrorist camps there. basically the thing that was distinctive about al-banna with

the pressure of egyptian government on his shoulders was he was a cagey decision-maker a tactician who could switch gears quickly to figure out what was going to work and what wasn't going to work. you see that throughout the world. one of his senior intel officials who testified before congress said the brotherhood has adapted all these different tactics in every different country and alluded to this as well and see it as a point in their favor that somehow they were people of moderation but that is not really what they have done. they basically adjusted themselves to the reality on the ground up what is going on for they can use violence and hamas and gaza they use it. to answer your original question which was a political party in egypt and whether or not the brotherhood has become the party and what that will meet. i will give you a quick comparison of the two brotherhood political parties. we have seen some tensions between old and new guard in terms of the election process

for secretary general of the group. there the old guard has as far as i can tell basically one for the time being. mainly because of the success of hamas and the thing there is when you have the hard-liners within the muslim brotherhood who have seen the success of hamas in terms of establishing itself as a political entity and a reality in gaza and they fought if any challenges from inside that would basically modify their approach. so there is one case study where you can see that there is the capacity for these decisions -- mike fissures within a political party and the muslim brotherhood. the second is that i will give you go is the islam party in yemen which is led by sheikh sin donahue is a designated al qaeda backer. he is a guy who's known in the treasury department as a longtime spiritual adviser for osama bin laden. is recruited jihadist to go to al qaeda training camps. is a guy who disapproves to my mind the idea that there are somehow this vast gap between

the brotherhood and al qaeda. when you see it character like this. the islam party has not been subjected to the rigors of the democratic debate because of the way the pluto go government has acted and you have not seen as much of the tensions between different factions in the party. i don't think that the brotherhood in egypt is necessarily going to go that way. there is potential for a lot more disagreement in terms of basically working out how they are going to position themselves. in the long run though i don't see any other dense yet that the new guard is going to be the old guard since in jordan the old guard one out. >> just one thing on the brotherhood in egypt. i tend, graywith lorenzo that i don't believe this is a comintern. don't think the organization really does work that way.

i think the local economy of brotherhood groups is really at times quite profound. that is not to say there is not a universal fraternity. i think there is. i strongly suspect whatever happens with the brotherhood it will have profound impact on the brotherhood abroad. there was a few at one time garza held by frenchman that the western experience of muslims which feed back into the middle east and fundamentally change the middle east. now, there is some evidence for intellectual ideas moving from the west going back to the native countries and having some influence. that is certainly true and iran. it is less true i would argue in the air for old though it is still true but i think the real intellectual generator is back in the middle east, so whichever

way the brotherhood goes however it evolves, i would expect it to have serious ramifications on the brotherhood elsewhere. so, if the brotherhood is actually corralled by the democratic system, then i would expect that impact to be fairly significant locally. >> reuel hit on it point which is a discussion of what the brotherhood is as a international today. is an international -- i take take it be somewhere in between. it is not a top-down organization where the general guide in egypt directs all the parties and they do what he says however you can't dismiss it as a purely sort of movement in inward along and sort of a only have a common interest and sort of a club so to speak. you can see that in a number of the ways. you can see that with the flotilla that approach gaza back

in 2010. if you study the roster the characters on the flotilla you can see brothers from all these different branches of the brotherhood from jordan and egypt and britain they came together for this event in a highly coordinated fashion. that suggests he may a greater degree of coordination between these entities and sort of a social club or movement. the second thing is you could see it and make the finance the organization internationally where they channeled money to hamas. is amazing to watch everything from the u.s. across the u.s. in the middle east where these organizations are capable of putting their money in the same coffer and they have and to know exactly how to get their money to hamas to fund these organizations. that is something that is come out of the trials we can see organizations set up deliberately with the help of organizations internationally in egypt and elsewhere to raise money for hamas. so i kind of come out in between the two. i don't think you can argue that based on what we know that it is a hierarchical organization. i don't think that is the way it

works but by the same token you can't say it is a movement that is loosely affiliated. it is something in between which is basically how a lot of organizations are modeled. >> i think it is interesting that this conversation is propelling itself and we don't need to ask too many questions to prompt a good lively conversation here. i want to ask one other question though. i think i sense a little bit of difference between you lorenzo and you tom. we haven't talked about the muslim brotherhood here in the west. there has been a lot of talk recently in the media here. can you tell me very quickly how each of you view its operations here in the west and what thinks it has in the middle east and more broadly the change we are witnessing right now across the middle east? how does that impact the brotherhood in the west right now? >> it is fair to say pretty much in every western country we have organizations that the pattern

has been a student organization created by a handful of experienced brotherhood individuals who left egypt for syria or other countries to escape persecution and a larger number of enthusiastic students. in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s that evolved into very large organizations nowadays. very large, very vocal and very visible and very prominent because they are often located whether washington or paris. at the end of the day we are a very small membership of a few thousand people at most in most countries. they all sort of contract and again it is the dichotomy of whether it is an organization or not. there is kind of an umbrella structure for exempla in europe,

which is based in brussels not coincidently two blocks from the european commission. and they do interact all the time. they do coordinate their activities all the time. nevertheless in each country, each organization organization acts independently, free to choose its tactics, free to choose whatever the goals are in and it is not uncommon to see in some cases you have this division globally and in the west. the gulf war was the first one in 1981, a major event that really divided the brotherhood. you have some branches of the brotherhood on one side and others on the other and of bernard on this -- site in lost funding so you do have those divisions. when it comes to the links to the middle east i think it is very difficult -- i'm fully aware that we have only scratched the surface and it would the naïve and arrogant of

me or anybody else to claim to know the full picture. i think some links to exist and it was very interesting when i was writing the book and doing interviews with the brotherhood in the west telling me there were no links with or to egypt and people in the shura council and egypt, the brotherhood in germany was here last week so it is different. we are only scratching the service nevertheless according to -- cairo being new moscow calling the shots and telling people in norway or canada how to carry on. there is a lot of independents with what the brotherhood france is completely different from what the brotherhood does in u.k.. look at how they act on the -- uif is very quiet about it in france.

so the dynamics are very different. there's a common intellectual heritage and methodology that comes from the middle east but the brotherhood in the west has been able to adapt it in the west. there is a definite generational change taking place. we have people born in the west that are taking a lead in these organizations. our big difference, are they just better versed in talking a better game? difficult to say. would argue some organizations are going away from the brotherhood ideology to some degree. and others are not, not at all. when it comes also to at least the one point that brings them all together and this is where i agree with thomas isn't support for hamas. that is the one issue on which they do not compromise and it is the one issue that it caused them a lot of problems because the one issue where they have

been publicly supporting violent action and that is caused them a lot of pr headaches and that is the one issue in which they do not compromise in raising funds and that is caustic and a lot of legal problems. the holy land case in the united states been united states been the most prominent example. that is where you see the more sophisticated kind of interaction. >> two things. reuel you mentioned in egypt there were three things you didn't think the brotherhood was going to get away from is anti-semitic anti-americanism. those are obviously the basic commonalities in all all the brotherhood branches but this is where i take a dimmer view than lorenzo on this issue in terms of engaging the brotherhood in the west. one of the characters who has been prominently talked about in this whole controversy surrounding him is ramadan who is the grandson of hasan

al-banna. he investigates them carefully and he is the guy who firmly sets in the west, the guide who operates in the west and this is where i see a lot of what they say in the brotherhood ran ranches they have tactical decisions not something firmly rooted in their ideology and i want to read, i hated when people do this but i had to do it because paul berman said this better than i ever could. is an exhaustive study and afterwards he talks about commies is what is ramadan palm palm --'s final message and messages in four parts. the first is ramadan condemning terrorism. the third step is he understands terrorism so tenderly he ends up justifying it. the four step is he justifies it so thoroughly that he ends up defending it. that is exactly what i think you are dealing with. he is a fist up which is he says

who are you to question about terrorism anyway? so i think that is a big part of the problem i see in a lot of the intellectual debate when you talk about these groups and what difference is they have between them how much of it is rhetoric for the time medication versus what is real ideological differences? biella suggest that i've debated from a don and i would suggest he could not have gotten to the point described by mr. berman in the book without growing up in europe. it is beyond a shadow of a doubt the man was not nearly be as personally vain or as warring if he had not spent so many years in switzerland. so, he would be vastly more interesting man and he would be probably be happier if he had actually spent more time in egypt. >> let me add one final thought. basically the way i see this all his criteria for these branches

of brotherhood is a simple question which i address in my opening which is what is your stance on suicide bombings? you can't walk back from suicide bombings and announce them, then my guess is you probably are not a moderate islamic. i think it is something quite different from that. >> i am happy to have lorenzo and tom -- reuel you said we will have debates and you implied early stanford that this debate should be productive when they are actually given the necessity to defend positions on the argue back and forth but isn't it equally possible that the form the debates will take is not people sitting on a panel civilly disputing one another's ideas or writing op-eds or going on tv and radio but rather the debate to take for example in russia which has parliamentary procedures and voting or iran of

course which is parliamentary procedures and voting or increasingly lebanon which has a history of parliamentary procedures and voting but in each of these cases the parameters of the debate are limited by assassinations. you can think of a good op-ed, you kill your enemy and that shuts them up pretty effectively. >> i mean that as a possibility. the only problem that we assume the worse for the brotherhood. the only problem with that is it is going to have to get by the egyptian military, so if it is going to take a policy of assassination, and i doubt it is going to go that way, because i think it would be nipped in the bud and a longer-term aspiration but if her were to go that way it would more or less have to be complicit with the military if the military is complicit in that then we are probably all coked anyway. i would expect there to be real debate.

that debate is probably going to largely be screaming. i mean if we witness debate in the middle east, it tends to be on a volume and a range, which is significantly different than in the west. so, but i think that debate is nevertheless real. and i would expect those in egypt who like their a call, the women in egypt who like certain social rights, the businessman in egypt who like all the western tourism and the military men who like all the goodies to vigorously defend their positions in an egyptian way, and i think the brotherhood is not going to have an easy time railroading this through. with that said you know, if they do well, at the ballot box, they

will be in a position to democratically see more of their agenda implemented. >> you keep talking about egyptian alcohol. i personally would like to ban egyptian beer. is rather terrible. >> actually i think it has gotten better because they actually have a deal with the turks and the turks came down to help them and actually i think the quality --. >> we are going to take a question from michael allen. >> thank you. two brief questions if i may. one on each of. some of the differences with turkey is in turkey the military was largely responsible for constraining and moderating the party and its predecessors. by contrast in egypt we have seen recently the egyptian military facilitating enhancements -- amendment

committee and in the light of yesterday's results we seem to be saying the development of what some commentators have called mubarak is some. seemingly intent on re-creating the kind of adversarial political system that says both of them to varying degrees quite well at the expense of a secular democratic middle. how do you explain the rationale or what is the rationale issue understanding of the military's attitudes in a recent decision and secondly we have heard nothing about tunisia hardly at all. as they understand its leader is currently being held up in the west is the most moderate the most democratic of us liberal of all the parties and even more than morocco. and tanisha we know they have a strong military as we have been morocco a monarch who is ahead of the faithful so none of those red lines the islamist party in

tunisia so if you could throw a little light on that in tanisha. >> tunisia concerns me less than egypt to be honest. not because of the military necessarily but because of society and i honestly think it is of course difficult to evaluate a society that wasn't free until a couple of months ago but i think the islamists have traditionally had only limited support. is tunisia going to be leverage some forces and participate in an election election and win some seats? probably come absolutely. will they be part of the system? probably but i don't see them making the kind of headway at the brotherhood in egypt would make where i agree with the assessment that the numbers we have talked about i really don't see that happening in tunisia. of course there are other parts of these that will be organized

but it just doesn't have that he'll into niche in society. we talked about moderates and radicals get tunisia has been ousted in the west as -- a book about that democrats. rashid talks about democracy but democracy was invented via muslims. but when you read and i agree with thomas what ghannouchi talks about in terms of citizenship he talks about qualified and unqualified citizenship. muslims have a qualified citizenship with an additional couple of burdens which is to pledge of allegiance to the state which muslims don't have to do. they are not entitled to the highest positions in government. so with all the talk about democracy, you read the footnotes and it is not necessarily bad but ghannouchi

talking about the age tk as a model for the last few years. that is where you kind of see in a way this more moderate wing of the brotherhood which is not exactly what we would be perfect lamel democrats but nevertheless ghannouchi and the second generation brotherhood is going be a cape p. way. >> ghannouchi i'm glad you raised because ghannouchi is a great example of the doublespeak and again you have to sort of a think as criteria for how you think judging these intellectuals and and and these ideologues and how they approach things and at the end of the day for ghannouchi what is he believing? does he believe in clerical rule or the sharia state were essentially these preordained clerics tell people i live their lives and is that consistent with any kind of former democracy and i would say in his view of the world no it is not so when we talk about democracy we are talking about something

different. is basically how clerics are chosen within the organization and sort of how ruiz established. it is not true democracy opening up but on all these issues, i'm interested to hear what reuel has to say about this but there's a tension between the idea that these are some sort of detente with the egyptian mobile terry and islamists and a power-sharing arrangement i think is perhaps and i'm curious to hear what reuel has to say that perhaps one of the big problems we face in not opening it up for the type of discourse that sub bases in the long-term opening up the middle east to rilla forms. >> just a quick word on that is interested may. he is a western muslim hybrid and i don't think he knows what he please. i think what a lot of these guys they're making it up as they go along and you have to have an extreme tolerance for withstanding the blatant contradictions of their thoughts.

those contradictions will paralyze you. he can obviously tolerate the contradictions of vastly better than we can but still we will see where he goes. i suspect, i'm not going to have a lot of work cut out. it is going to have a harder time. you can imagine he is interesting to listen to a unlike a lot of these guys and that is why he gets a lot of western attention because you can actually talk to him. on the egyptian military and the brotherhood, the primary reason is conservatism. as you said it is known that they like that relationship. i think the ndp is going to have to do a lot to survive. i think those folks are in deep doo doo. so they can't play to a liberal order. that is impossible.

that oxygen is going to be sucked up elsewhere so the ndp has to go back to its traditional political game which includes the move -- move of brotherhood. so it probably is looking forward to the muslim brotherhood doing better. but again as she said this is mubarakism. why were the liberal soap pounded by mubarak? because they took up his terrain. they took up the terrain as the western eyes elite. they appeal to us. it was much more -- they were in some sense much more threatening so i think this is simply more less a continuation of that. >> thank you. we are going to take a question on the left side. if you could state your name and affiliation please. >> thomas you mentioned iraq and

how the brotherhood treats suicide bombings there. which sunni party would you say corresponds to the brotherhood? what have they said regarding suicide bombings there? it strikes me as most suicide bombings are carried out by former al qaeda people with loose affiliation for al qaeda who are really folks seeking publicity and have almost no political role in the country. >> i agree with where you are coming from but what i'm talking about is the egyptian brotherhood, sort of justifies suicide bombings in iraq on their own theological grounds. on the west we talk about the terms of justifying only a defensive jihad. in other words some response to western aggression but if you study the data including what came out through wikileaks a series of declassified documents

on the high casualty event you can see the suicide bombings are what drive a large numbers of muslim casually so there's a real tension and i agree with you in terms of on the ground in iraq. i'm outside of iraq where the general guide of the muslim brotherhood in egypt is bombings. they like to portray it as some clear-cut sort of tactic to use against western aggression but i would say a lot of times it leads to civilians being killed much more than anything else. >> is it still happening even at the stage where the al qaeda people in iraq have no following whatsoever except for their own? secondly and i may have missed this because i came a little bit late but we had a story from a reporter in cairo about the division in the brotherhood by generations and the younger generation truly is splitting with living with their grandparents and their parents

and have a much broader outlook. >> do you find that as well? >> well again, i think lorenzo alluded to this earlier. i don't see see there are divisions in the brotherhood in the various branches and within the brotherhood in egypt. i agree there are different parties. what i always say is who wields the power? these younger brothers who do have a more sort of i would say comparatively speaking moderate viewpoint than the old guard if they were to take power and assert authority, you would see difference in the way they approach things but as lorenzo said i don't think we have seen the old guard in terms of the imagination of power there. is still it still going on in iraq? i think the brotherhood's rhetoric internationally from egypt has toned down in iraq because of the security situation there. what i was referring who are mostly statements really from i would say the post-2003 through 2008 meeting.

certainly between 2003 and 2008 in 2000 on at camp uruza number of quotes justifying that violence. >> just to congregate things, to show how complicated the brotherhood is thomas is perfectly right. you can -- make your whale put down the people within the brotherhood that sub port and still support suicide bombing. certainly a few weeks ago a supportive suicide law means. nevertheless what is the local option of the brotherhood participated in elections and all the al qaeda people in iraq, many tapes were issued condemning the brotherhood in iraq for participating in elections. one of the many acts of treachery of the brotherhood that in iraq the elections.

so it is very complex and internally there has been criticism of the brotherhood, within what we referred to as the global muslim brotherhood. criticism of the brotherhood in iraq were dissipating in elections but the defense of their position was listen we have to be pragmatic and what is best going to achieve our goals? not a random bombings that al qaeda is doing. then of course you have the rhetoric for public consumption and i'm sure their instincts which of course to use violence against invaders. no question that is the gut feeling. so it is very complex and always debated within the brotherhood and you never really know exact way where they are going to stand. >> i mean, it is obviously too soon to know but it would be interesting, to go to egypt and

began to look at bookstores and familiarize visited by the brotherhood often. they are essentially brotherhood bookstores to see which books are actually selling well, selling like hotcakes. again i don't know the answer to that and if you were to say go to iran today and you were to see whether -- was selling well or numerous works by the marxist islamist father of the revolution, i think you would discover that no one is reading them. they have evolved, they have gone. those books have no relevance whatsoever to the vast majority of people and if you go to najaf you go into the bookstores and you will see that come many's pamphlet to live by, they are all stacked up and no one buys

them. the iranians brought them over as an exporter no one would even think of reading them. so, we will see what happens in egypt with the brotherhood and we will see what happens in their bookstores, to see who was selling and who is not in that would he a good indicator of where the brotherhood really is now, to go and see what the book looks like. >> we have a question here in the back. ..

story in a way what we've seen, but books are still very much published in the language if you find them in every bookstore everywhere you go in cairo. was published in 1979 in arabic and never translated into any other language so the question you ask is if this is their reputation as part of your history your kind of interest and want to refuse i don't think that what you are claiming their reputation of the public and you get some weird looks when it comes to that. >> just quickly i haven't been to the bookstores in cairo but i can see from consuming a lot of

online propaganda and messaging what concerns me is when you will get even entities in the u.s., a lot of the more radical ideologues still have a prominent presence on line in terms of what is presented in the written form and also videos. that sort of what concerned me. and you can see the teachings on chehab and the military things are still prominent. you can see they have a relationship with pakistan who was a very strong affiliated muslim brotherhood intellectual. you can see this stuff on line easily and i can assure you one youtube in two seconds videos that are downloadable from the various brotherhood affiliate's. so in my mind, i don't know exactly what is in the bookstores in cairo but i know where they're pushing it everywhere else and it certainly doesn't have here to the non-violent message they like to say. >> yes. my name is gregg and i'm an independent consultant. my question is probably fourth lorenzo.

the party was legalized a few weeks ago in egypt and of course former brotherhood members who long wanted legal representation of mubarak but never got it recently they got it. they seem to be attracting some young doherty egyptians who had, you know, democratic but also leaning so i'm wondering what impact the organization will have on the fortune of the brotherhood as they go forward with the election process in egypt. >> it's a very good question. i wish i had a better answer. i fink with the problem is we don't know the resources these groups have. my feeling is the party doesn't have that many resources. the brotherhood has that the fast grassroots apparatus, and first it was about fissures within the brotherhood is the law of the bottom line as resources are controlled by those. even people in the third generation are very prominent

second generation like [inaudible] who left pretty much the brotherhood and they are kind of trying to find their own niche, but it's very complicated to see where and how they are going to be immobilized some support the resources beyond the perhaps small group of followers in cairo. it's part of the small committee of people who formed the apr foot movement, the revolutionary people. this may not be the young person. the gamal abdel, 50 something. but how is that movement going to translate into something like a viable political party at the polls in six months? that is i think problematic. that is why i still see the traditional brotherhood, which is the leadership under attack.

last year the scheduled a protest by the younger people in front of the arab medical union where the brotherhood of leadership is. that's something unheard of where you have the young people protest against the leadership. we never saw that in the past. the pacify internally, and a lot of this -- it's difficult to say how much of this is a radiological. there is no secret that one reason a lot of people in the brotherhood is to get a nice job. you go to medical school and get control of the union and guess who has a job for you when you graduate? if you are part of the brotherhood there's a good chance to get a job and if you're not, you don't get a job. a lot of people cheering for that reason. and one even in the movement -- the discontent might be personal issues by the ideological, but

my point is the leadership is still very much in the tradition of the first and second brotherhood and it would be a great choice for people to move away from them, not impossible, but in the short term if you break away, you're kind of on your own. unless you really strike an alliance with the islami force. it's kind of a brave new world out there. >> quickly, lorenzo brought up the old guard of the brotherhood in egypt. there is a good paper from the hudson institute in 2005 that talked about the new guard and highlighted challenging the old guard, and i asked this question all the time with the old guard is being supplanted or having a serious challenge, and in 2011 from the paper in 2005 and don't see any evidence that has made inroads to change -- >> [inaudible]

>> exactly. >> didn't get elected. he got kicked out. >> a question from mark. >> no comment, but a brief question. we have heard a lot about we shall see or as the french say [inaudible] -- but clearly we need policy. we clearly need some policy suggestions. what i would ask you perhaps the three decisionmakers, lorenzo, doherty decision maker at the e.u. commission and council and the senior director at the nsc had the privilege of being the decision maker within the prime minister's office in jerusalem. what should the europeans and americans and the israelis do in confronting what is a consequential change in the middle east, and particularly with respect to the muslim brotherhood? >> i will go first. [laughter] thanks for that question, mark. >> thank you very much. appreciate it.

it is a policy to some degree. there is a good argument for sometimes just not being too proactive and having to wait and see approach. i think you would be a mistake. i published two weeks ago and not hidden the "washington post" but i got criticized quite a lot for it. my point was trying not to make the brotherhood be this 10-foot giant, because my fear would be we are all thinking the brotherhood is going to take over, and we embrace it immediately fearful that if we don't, then we are going to be -- they aren't going to like us and we aren't going to find ourselves in a good position. i think that is -- and i see the temptation with its -- to stick to the e.u. i see that sentiment there and i think that it's all for two reasons. first they don't like us any we so it's not whether you increase the more not. it's their position they don't like us any way. second is as we discussed here i'm not so sure they're going to be dominating the political scene.

it's going to be an important player but not dominating the political scene. so the week and see approach i think is the best one. you want to keep the channel of communication open. you want to perhaps play as much as you can. i don't think we have much influence, the plea in this kind of internal fisher's you want to establish the communication for the second and third generation. but i would take the line where you don't increase it -- increase it as it is happening, and you don't necessarily go against them. i think at this point if we were to take either route i think it's fair to understand that there is room for very tiny engagement for the most part every single policy position the brotherhood has that comes to middle east policies at odds with the e.u. wants. nevertheless, once confronted with certain pragmatic choices we talked about with israel, sure, other people can talk

about what they are going to do that. but once confronted with the military and the spending if they take certain positions they're going to see their aid cut off from the u.s. it might change their tone. that's why i would wait and see by maintaining the dialogue. >> let's say one of the things that struck me about lorenzo's book was well done as he talked about the engagement of the western government with the brotherhood in terms of the frame i think he framed in the term the brotherhood organization and the west do not represent a majority of muslims. the very small organizations in terms of membership it's very well organized and they are very well motivated, where has the broad most muslims don't identify as far as we can tell with these organizations. when you go to engage in the organizations and talk to them as long as they're not violating any crimes you talk to a certain degree first and foremost you have to be cognizant of you are talking to and have a thorough study has paul did to say here's

the line talking to. it's not -- in love with you see in the public discourse is to engage somebody and talk to them and whatever nice smiley face it on something that day is the only store you take away. you have to have a much more complicated and rigorous picture of who it is you are dealing with. but the second thing is that in terms of their ideology and their long-term goals, i think it's a very big mistake for the western government and anybody in the middle east to believe there's a sharp break between the brotherhood's audiology and the jihadists groups where again i keep coming back to the question what is your stance on the suicide bombing as part of the martyrdom that we face today. and if these intellectuals and public, you know, brotherhood leaders don't wholeheartedly disavow that, then you have to be careful in terms of how you engage and talk to them. >> actually, i think the israelis probably have the easiest position here because

one, they shouldn't plan for dictatorship. they should increase the space transition in the middle east. they should remain deeply skeptical and suspicious and maintain a robust defense budget and they should realize in the short term they are screwed. >> that was uplifting. [laughter] >> we are beginning to run out of time, so what i suggest we do is i think we have a question from [inaudible] we have one from sebastian and one from michael. we will do is take your questions at once and try to wrap it up and try to end an ounce on time as possible. so let's start with what might and pass the microphone on very quickly and make sure everybody gets their final questions. >> [inaudible] with all respect for the speakers and the audience, i have one question, why i am

invited here? >> would you prefer not to be? >> no, but do you know me? >> phyllis your affiliation and point of view in a few seconds. >> my name is ahmed. i have 25 years expertise and muslim brotherhood [inaudible] did you know they have their own university? >> i do. >> okay. so why you invited me here? just to listen to these gentlemen? >> would you like to ask a question? >> you are invited because we invite a lot folks here. >> in my respect, you are playing in my backyard. >> okay.

we are going to pass the microphone, please. you're all in our invited to take part in the discussion and the was the hope for today. >> thank you. sebastian affairs. like to take the question to the next iteration. if lorenzo is correct that the old guard still dominates the muslim brotherhood and if thomas is correct that the old guard is still unprepared to renounce violence and suicide bombing, then what is the u.s. start towards the victorious muslim brotherhood election in europe? if they do not denounce violence? and just a comment, the analogy to the comment on the brotherhood that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. al qaeda isn't the common term so just because it isn't a common term doesn't mean we shouldn't be very concerned about it.

>> well that was a perfect suggestion. because i wanted to comment on the common term. [laughter] as if the comintern was merged or something. out of a james bond movie. please remember all these communist parties before they came were perfectly flexible and social democrat and have all kind of great things to say about democracy, freedom and so forth. it's getting a bad name as the generation is dying off and so forth. secondly, fissures within the totalitarian movement and even regimes are commonplace. happens all the time. they killed them because they were so intense. in the case of italian fascism,

he figured out early on that young happy fascists who want to believe in the revolution and so forth were for the communist party, and he instructed people in the communist party to recruit them, and they did recruit them, and a significant element in the post war italian communists consisted of at the time young fascists, ideological conscious and idealistic fascists who then converted to the other extreme. i mean, one must keep these various things in mind. when we talk about mass movements and totalitarian movements. and finally, the policy question. the policy question is very awkward for everybody to talk about because we've screwed it up for so long. the policy questions to support democrats and to support space revolutions. we have not done that. no country in the western world

has done that, certainly israel hasn't done that, and so here we are. and now -- and that's what happens when you have a rotten policy for a very long time, that is to get yourself into the crises to which there is no good solution. we don't have good solution's right now. so i think we have to go back to the basics. but for god's sake, don't forget the history of the totalitarians , because it is a field history but it is important. >> final comment, gentlemen? >> just one thing on michael's and i agree on supporting democracy and i think the united states should also be forthright in saying what it stands for and it should have no illusion that by embracing the muslim brotherhood that you're going to moderate the muslim brotherhood. i will just say on evolution on michael's point, hosni mubarak

launched 83 years ago. the soviet union is going enterprise lasted 72 years. there is what is being launched by the muslim brotherhood is not young. this is not a youthful radiology. it is an old ideologies. that doesn't mean it can't be vigorous. as michael was living proof, you can be of a certain age and still be vigorous. [laughter] but it does mean perhaps you are not at your prime. [laughter] so i would just suggest we are not dealing with something that is i would argue useful growth mode. i suspect the brotherhood right now is trying to hold onto what it's got to see if i can make progress. but i think we need to be -- we need to be careful about

freezing the organizations from 83 years ago or even 50 years ago. >> i would just say - go michael highlighted in terms of the lack of policy, there's absolutely no strategic thinking in terms of the greater world. sebastian made the point a number of times as well and i agree there is no strategic thinking in the u.s. government on these issues at all, so there is no way -- within the various quarters of any given administration it varies between the different administrations. there is no consistent approach to these matters. so that's why we think highlighting policy problems is important because, you know, looking at this perspective if i were a policymaker today, you have to go back to basics. you have to start square one. it's important to establish the fact of who you're dealing with in terms of understanding who we were dealing with, with the believe, with the don't believe, how the characters a lot of times are able to use words to

sort of defect criticism but then say something different to different audience, so the dynamic of where we see -- lorenzo vandiver talking about this before the panel -- you can see the difference between the muslim brotherhood english-speaking and arabic speaking website. these types of analyses i don't see any evidence any of this is being done in the u.s. government at all. with any rigorous degree. and i will see any evidence that there is any real understanding of this in the duplicity involved in understanding the characters and when you're dealing with, so that makes the policy formulation difficult. >> fighting it's the same way. before you do policy, you've got to know what you're doing policy on or about. and i can we are still at the level, though we don't know. during the research on my book, it was fascinating to see the lack of understanding of the entities here in the u.s. or europe how most governments don't understand the dynamics and the ideology behind the

organizations. and because of the doublespeak and the hybrid political religious nature of the organizations which makes all of us on comfortable because inevitably you have to talk about religious issues. we are still at the level we don't have knowledge of the organizations and they're in theology. nevertheless, i think that we don't have the time to just sit back and establish the knowledge. we can do the policy on the go which is a scary thing to define understand not the first time in history we have to do that. and i think a policy of very cautious and huge debt and you were referring to my book what i talk about the policy of western options of the brotherhood isasi engagement without empowerment which is a very fine line. you cannot avoid talking to

them. they do represent an important cross section in the west or political spectrum in egypt and other countries. but you do support the others that are genuinely pro-democracy. so that the engagement shouldn't transcended into empowerment, and that is life year to some degree it's happening where we are all kind of running around scared the brotherhood, the brotherhood and then we decide we have to make nice with them and that is the engagement. and in power met. so, building the knowledge base and having a smart engagement with where you can find room for very small, very limited issues on which you can find a tactical partnerships, though we are talking about iraq. that is the situation where some kind of positive outcome came by working with the brotherhood.

beyond that, it's very problematic. no question about it and as i sit on every big policy issue in the middle east, the brotherhood issue is at odds with what the u.s. is but the reality. >> this is a question we are going to continue to wrestle with in washington and certainly here at fdd. on behalf of the defense a lot to think you all for coming and think c-span for coming out today and i would like to thank our panelists for coming. again i would encourage all to go and find the book god, man and about box and the book the muslim brotherhood in the west and also look for tom auslin's forthcoming book or monograph on the muslim brotherhood coming out at fdd. again i want to thank you for attending this briefing and please, check back to learn more about the briefings we will be

having as the issue progresses. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

government officials and internet company executives last week testified about online consumer privacy legislation. the measure would include a so-called do not track provision which allows internet users to keep their web browsing activities from being tracked by advertising companies and others. the senate commerce committee hosted this 90 minute hearing. [inaudible conversations] >> hilboldt conversations [inaudible conversations]

>> i will go ahead and call this to order. i want to thank everyone for being here, and we have several witnesses today, and we are going to have agreed hearing. and i want to thank everyone -- first went to thank the staff for pulling this hearing together. they have pulled together an excellent panel, two panels of witnesses. one thing senator kerry and i were talking about is the senate is supposed to vote at ten thanks 30 and based on the senate time we don't know if that means 10:30, 10:45 or 11:00. so at some point, we have to swap the gavel back and forth and race and vote and come back, though we will try to keep hearing going during that time. also, i know 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 minutes on that. what i thought i would do is get a very brief statement, and i know senator hutchison 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 one senator kerry for just a few minutes to talk about his legislation and go on to the panel and one senator hutchinson shows up, we will certainly recognize her for an opening statement, but let me say that as we start today i want to welcome everyone to the commerce committee hearing on the state of online consumer privacy. this is a very challenging endeavor. we want to balance the free internet, the ability to access content and services for all users with concerns that are raised about user privacy and information collection practices

online. so consumers can conduct research and read on-line newspapers, they can write e-mails and respond to each other and real-time. some of them will be worried about how their information is being collected on line. 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 has been great in so many ways, privacy is an area that we need to keep focused on and try to balance these interests and make sure but it's a good place to be in a good place to conduct business. so our first panel was going to be the federal trade commission and the department of commerce.l our second panel we will hear from consumer advocates,chnology technology specialists and members of the businessghts

community. their insights and experience are valuable andlu very much evs 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. . . morning is the administration is at the

point of recommending that this be dealt with in the legislation. we will continue to flesh out this particular as we complete our overall policy paper but we are prepared to start working with this committee and other members of congress on the specifics now. >> thank you. i have questions about the do-not-track but what i would like to do is go to senator bayh isakson since the vote started in the then senator kerry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. leibowitz, in your front page of your prepared testimony, you have the number of cases then you brought over the last 15 years in various categories and fair credit reporting act for the children's protection.cd is that volume by categoryvol proportionate to the number ofpe complaints that you get, or is it just ---- >> well, we keep a database, consumer sentinel, and that is one important way we developdevp cases. there are other ways as well. ar and so, we like to think it's

not a perfect symmetry, but we like to think that it's in esoportion to the need to brings cases, as you know we are a very small agency, so we try to leverage our limited resources. but we think -- we try to gom ir where the harm is or is going t become so we think it'sand we ti reflective of that.nk but i will get you some consumer co complaints.ints, but but wewe also -- as you know, being a member of thisthis committee, it is sometimes you will see something you will reao about or the commissioner will, and that will go into the sort of investigative process. so there's a lot of different w ways. >> that is where i was going >> 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. tat goes back tod authority usually goes back to the treasury. hearn .. 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] >> 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