might distress decisionmaking in washington d.c.. as to several things, has to the security value of the machines, there may be some. it is un proven. we don't know yet. we need to see the science which is why it is important d.c. circuit has required a full risk-management analysis. that will be part of the full analysis. risk transfer is the technical or risk-management term. if you take a security step that is risk transfer. could be one person in 1 hundred million which would be seven. year if you order seven hundred million people on a plane may be one person in 1 hundred million gets cancer because of the radiation from these machines. i'm not in a position to assess that. people are worried and have a right to be worried. i don't trust the decisionmaking process. i alluded in my remarks about

the fact that new smuggling techniques will lead to new techniques for discovering smuggling and those may go inside the body. >> if you have any more questions please thank our speakers and thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> this is a dangerous time for britain and the dangerous time for britain's economy. the government austerity plan is failing. you can sense the fear people have as we watch the economic crisis assault our country in

2008 threatened to return. >> with the british house of commons still in recess annual party conferences are continuing. watch labor party leader ed miller band's keynote on c-span. next sunday british prime minister and conservative leader david cameron. american citizens forced from their homes. no trial, no charges. for ten-year-old norman mcnabb and 10,000 japanese americans, this interment camp was home. hear his story on american history tv on c-span3 from the dedication of the heart mountain learning center when america are perfect explore nineteenth century america through art and discovery from the smithsonian's great american hall of wonders exhibit and oral history. in 1973 democrat elizabeth holtzman became the youngest woman ever elected to congress.

one year later as a member of the house judiciary committee she was voting to impeach a president. vote for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history. press the c-span alert button. >> oral argument is the first time justices talk about a case together. so when antonin scalia asks the question i can figure out what is bothering them about a case. >> by law since 1916 the new supreme court term begins the first monday in october each year here in 70 cases. this year cases include gps tracking without a warrant, profanity on television and copyright protection. watch the justices recent appearances on line at the c-span video library all archived and surgeable. it is washington your way. >> next a panel of legal experts

discuss online privacy and look ahead to new laws designed to protect personal data. this was a part of thursday's action media and policy summit in washington. it runs an hour. >> i am tony romm, author of boring tech. welcome to the summit on privacy personalization and security. i am sure i don't have to tell this crowd how important topic this is especially in washington when lawmakers are looking at a host of areas and regulations. i have a great panel to talk about what is going on and what to expect. i have got bryan gernert, stuart ingis and gerard stegmaier. i think we should just jump right in rather than go through a long introduction about the

importance of privacy and security. some of us were here last year and sought a lengthy and informative panel about privacy. a lot has changed over the course of the year. we have seen security incidents and interest on capitol hill. we have seen a lot happening in the private space from new bills to new efforts on the part of industry to respond to consumer concerns. how much have the landscape change in the last year? where do you see things going in washington? >> it is great to be here to see everybody. i think a lot of progress has been made by the business community in developing tools to give transparency and choice to consumers and explain to them all the benefits of the use of personalization and information after the information agents. the effort i am most closely

associated with is the digital advertising alliance which is an effort remember of the leading trade associations in the united states, direct marketing association, association of national advertisers, network advertising initiative and many others developed principles for the broad business community working with companies and players in the space back with their 5,000 members and rolled out what many of you probably see in your browsing habits today, a little triangle on it with consumers can click on and learn about online behavioral advertising and consumer choice associated with it. this time last year there was not an icon on one end and we are estimating we are approaching or over 90% of

online behavior lands provide transparency and choice to consumers and describe all but the value of delivering interest based adds to consumers that fuel and provide economic underpinnings of the innovations we are living with today. >> let's keep it going. >> gerard stegmaier, just a common disclaimer, if you hear anything smart you can attribute to me or our clients or anything dumb you can attribute to meet alone. i am here on behalf of myself, not representing any of our clients. that is important because one of the things we have really seen change in the last year from my perspective is evolution of privacy from a compliance function to being integrated directly into a business strategic role within organizations.

the best example at our lunch discussion a few minutes ago when the city of chicago cheap date officer -- chief data officer. the data is ubiquitous and what we're really seeing in the last year is an evolution of public discussion about the relationship between what we and data in the business call big data and how to be responsible stewards of big data. that information becomes available in real time in ways that are machine readable and accessible to auld. how can we ensure that data not only flows but is used responsibly and with perspective of stewardship in mind? that is interesting at the freedom forum because in the realm of activism in the political space that is a great crucible to see tension between how to activate voters and

consumers and get people to take action but do so in a way that is not deceptive or misrepresents information. there is a perception that can be a real challenge. and i think an example crystallized to me with the discussion of onstar in the last week. we saw after users which stopped using the onstar system that onstar would collect data unless consumers turned it off and there was a public outcry in the papers, immediate fire storm of controversy. senator schumer sent a letter and the company changed, turned off the functionality. something really important of lost in that debate. that debate in some respects focused on whether we should have an opt in standard or and

opt out standard but a more relevant question that we didn't really ask and we need to talk about especially in the context of democracy is how is the information going to be used and by whom? we generally operate from the presumption that more information is better or good and we believe there is an enormous amount of innovation so the real task for us and people in industry is to strike a balance between innovation and respectful stewardship. that is something the debate has increased. what does it mean for all of us as regular people? i came across a quote i will sensor for the audience. how is the world different? time to send lawyers, guns and money because this stuff has hit the fan. what do i mean?

this is one of the most important publicly policy changes we will see in our lifetime and the decisions we make will be important not just for the people in this room but for the rest of the country for long time to come. >> i am the only non lawyer on the panel. and how it impacts business and how we take into account the privacy potential legislation and stewardship of the data we have. what i have seen in the past year is the industry has taken on the burden before everything gets going from legislation let's show that we are good stewards to privacy even though it is not identifiable to the individual. what i have seen and what we looked at in the past year is how we collect data. let's make sure it is clean data not tied to anybody from a

personally identifiable perspective which it never was. we looked at -- our business versus potential opt out. one thing is popped in versus all out. we have gone the conservative route of is not a model for us. to give you a context we deliver advertising for political advocacy and brand campaigns based on values and the issue positions and believes we have. to do that without understanding who that person is requires the one that we actually don't have any p i i. we look at it every day from the standpoint of let's make sure what we do doesn't cost as a -- cross sunni lines. there is value to the consumer or someone who cares and it is

relevant. it is about relevance. that is what we have seen in the past year. >> a great place to start the discussion. i want to start by talking about the work industry has done in online advertising. there was a report from stanford that suggested some of these icons and other tools industry put together to notify consumers of the ads that are out there and what information is collected and how to stop that collection hasn't been effective than those tools are there. they are educational goals they would fulfil. what do the metrics look like? what is the good and the bad? >> let me start on the stanford study. from where i sit the study was completely inaccurate. if you took away that study was done and the real facts and put them in front of statistics 101

at stanford university that it would have passed that standard. it is not fair to put the name stanford to the study. it was study of a student who works there. the reason i'm negative about it is our program was designed to provide consumers with choice and transparency for information. that is always done by third-party so there could be -- what that study looked at was anywhere where a third party was involved with a web site. most main websites, big-name publisher would have an independent service provider providing service to that company but in those instances they are not collecting information. they're just a service provider for that company.

they took that study and they said these are the third parties that show up on the site yet we don't see icons or choice in those cases. of course they wouldn't. what they were measuring is not what the program was designed to do. i view that as disingenuous to having an honest discussion. the real facts are we went from zero icons last year at this point and started creating them in the last year and we are at the point where we are serving trillions of icons. of you in front of your computer's go to any web page you will find the icon immediately which provides transparency to consumers and choice. we have hundreds of thousands. we are to 40,000 week going there but also providers we use,

grade companies, trusty, double verify are doing great things and evidence is a leading player. to provide services showing tens of thousands of consumers are finding the choice and a percentage, 25% are exercising choice and 75% aren't which shows there is engagement. people are making choices. the last point i will make is you couldn't educate about an icon that wasn't anywhere to be found so you had to get the icon out first. we are going to be doing major education in the coming months. more announcements down the road. we explain to people with the symbol is and explain the dialogue for consumers that care but mainly to provide transparency that these are good

companies doing the right thing. the truth is most consumers don't want to go through any of this stuff. they want to know the reputable companies they deal with that of a participants in our program that all of us love are doing the right things by the manned by their data and i can tell you unequivocally that they are. >> one particular thing you said. those who have not opted out of the various advertisements to their liking are they not doing that because they prefer the ads they are getting or is it because they don't understand the advertisements? >> it is both. we are early in an evolution and rollout of the program. when the recycling symbol was put out people didn't know what it is. it is a big society we live in. we are to three hundred million

americans globally. how many companies are engaged here? it takes time. we are having a societal discussion to make progress. it is all of the above. what i am encouraged by is broad adoption and engagement and that is increasing. what will likely happen is a lot more engagement and choices and that will back off when people realize what is going on and they get more comfortable. people are not concerned they're winding up with all the free resources and content they have on the internet and exchange they get an ad they are interested in buying an automobile. ask any american about that. they are very comfortable and our challenge is to make it clear that that is all we're doing. unlike -- nobody is taking the fact that you bought a frying pan from a retail site and

denying health insurance. i challenge anybody to show one instance where that is happening. it sounds great in the rhetoric but that is not happening. the company's in this country that are providing jobs, innovation across the board, they're delivering an ad you might be more interested in. >> you talk a little bit about falling star. one of the big topics of conversation this week. not just senator schumer but a letter from senator kuhns and al franken all of whom said they preferred the state changes in terms of service. but the point about innovation. i am curious if you think the problem was the way onstar looked to use the data was the way they went about its policy changes. maybe there wasn't a problem at all. what is your thought about what

happened this week? >> and will focus on the heart of your question. in absence of public policy the question is how do we determine what size fits many? if we allow people who are 6-foot 2 or 240 to dictate the amount of seats each of us have on an airplane all the time that will be an inefficient use of sea and on planes. maybe in efficient enough that if we took a seven foot person and did all the seating and put it on and everybody has to have the same seating space as michael jordan. that would be an inefficient use of space. what we are talking about in standard setting is a loud or enable those people elected by whatever margin to dictate how much seating space everyone has by rote and by rule as opposed

to and organic evolution based on what the marketplace dictates. i would submit not to be an apologist but i work with many companies in this space. incentive are enormous to be responsible to do the right thing and act in a way that will enable you to continue to work with publishers and others. the incentives are all there. it is coming directly to the on star example. i don't want to lose sight of my original decca which it isn't about opt in or opt out. we haven't had any public discussion what it might be a good thing for vehicles to be network devices and innovation and useful information. i don't know what they plan to do with the data but suppose we could get 10% decrease in congest and in the greater d.c.

market if all cars were connected. i am not sure many of us would oppose that if it were the only way the data were used or how it would be used. the question is who can get to the data, how might it be used. it is a red herring. what you are really saying is every seat on the airplane is going to be built for someone -- most of us are not. >> we will get into this discussion shortly but to hang on to something you said how do we have the conversation you just detailed in a way that most americans understand? all of us can have a conversation whether it should be opt in or opt out of the system. how do you have it in a way that conveys to the average mom and

dad that what they did may make sense in the context down the road, how does that happen? congress for the company, what is your thought about education? >> it is about relationships dependent context which means consistent with what most people expect. people who get into trouble of the ones who act in a way that is inconsistent with expectations for most. that is very important. a smart mentor of mine said before you do anything are you comfortable reading about it on the front page of the new york times? if you are uncomfortable or ashamed or embarrassed maybe that is something you shouldn't do. sunshine is the best disinfectant. when we think of these standards are come back to what i said in the opening comment about this

relationship between innovation and regulation and the need to have expressed recognition that when we regulate we are going to limit our ability to innovate because we will make some choices that may prevent the next google or facebook or company no one knows about. a very real risk. when we look where the economy is we look at the bright spots. how do we get more of those? i am not sure -- we have the folks in the senate dictating the standard for all of us. one bright spot which is tied into that is social media and all the tools we have enabled us to have a much richer discourse. >> i want to ask a follow-up on this. >> i want to follow in on where the discussion should be occurring. it is occurring at the table and all around the country and in

the dialogue between consumers but what is driving the discussion, the business community. congress is driving it. i agree we don't want a blunt instrument on the wall. we had proposals and as much criticism as the congress gets under current items it is an issue on a bipartisan level. there are people with strong views on both sides but it has gotten over several years increasing in the last couple years a public discussion. a lot of hearings and different ideas forward. that is where the discussion should happen. the discussion -- and the federal trade commission has been leading a couple yearlong dialogue where there's a public debate for public comment and different suggestion proposals.

none of them are locked -- lot --law but any given issue there are differences. very smart people are working on this issue and the same is true within the administration and the department of commerce, similar parallel. big study talking to consumers and businesses so i would argue the discourse is excellent right now. we just have to make sure we stay on top of it so we don't -- >> then the lawyers, guns and money. let's turn this over to somebody on the company's side. we started with nonstar and you talked about being a good steward of data. when you talk about what happened with onstock and acting in a way that consumers expect with your information do you think they acted in a way consumers would expect in that context or is there a different

way you would look at this? >> the consumer is a rational consumer on average. if they understand the value they get back from this data, we will know how to deploy help. your iphone does that anyway. there are things like that that are valuable to the consumer. one of the biggest challenges is does the consumer feel they are getting value? with the company we have i did the mother test. this is what we are doing. this privacy stuff going on. we deliver advertising that is more relevant but because of that we know something about you. we won't know specifically who you are or where you physically live. that is bad. but here is the value. it is relevant to where you are and what you might want or need

and allow you to payless for san product or be aware of other things. in addition to that, you may have to pay for content if we don't do this. go to the local paper and pay for content because it is advertising driven. you don't really know who i am and i get the content i want then i am ok with that. my mom is not the most sophisticated internet user but is a good representation of the consumer. ted deutch thank -- it is encouraging to see the business community to say we want to take responsibility and good work going on today. >> before we look into legislative proposals to want to

see if anyone has any questions for our panel. stand up and say your name and hopefully the camera will pick up. >> this is a very productive discussion but i have a question. what data are we talking about? we connect to the internet we have to give our ip address and location and other information about the computer that could come back to us personally. [inaudible] so when we talk about privacy what information are we talking about? where do draw the line?

other people might be more aware of information. >> i don't know much about 4 but you use it for all your browsing. i want to make sure when i walk outside nobody sees me. >> it is a good question but it begs the broader question on the scene by articulating which is innovation versus regulation. each person is going to have a different perspective on the sensitivity level of their information. it is a crystal clear point. when each of us goes out on the street we have a couple things that work. what do each of us think is acceptable?

where are we going to set the bar and what tools will be used to set that bar? can someone file a class-action lawsuit because you went on the street and could be seen? we think that sounds ridiculous but i wouldn't say that is ridiculous for the individual consumer because people have different points of view but i come back to this is a baseline of establishing one size fits most. we have a lot of ways to do that. we have self regulation, business community incentives built in a lot of ways so i am going to not answer your question because i don't know where the baseline should be. >> i will take a shot at it. you are asking the right question and the answer depends. classic lawyer's answer.

what date and what context and what standards apply. the area i was describing we are talking about anonymous data from cookies. it knows what website you've visited. not you by name but the computer you are on and used to deliver non sensitive pads likely to be relevant to you and your given notice that was happening and choice is something you don't want to do and you can exercise that choice. there's a belief borne out in numbers that there will be a percentage of people. doesn't matter how anonymous it is or how innocuous it is they

are not interested. most people are happy to know it is confined to that data. if that data were used to identify you by name, identify certain products and denies certain benefits you would be entitled to or society has determined are that important eligibility for credit or health care treatment, there should be higher standards and limits on collection and use of the data as the default. it will depend on the type of data and the uses. >> others? in the back? >> can you imagine the fcc's ongoing dialogue? by latest count every member of congress sponsored privacy or

data retention bill to get a sense -- if you had to design a bill what other three things you would see as essential to be effective but at the same time to consider -- [inaudible] >> first i think identifying the individual by who they are from a name perspective and social security number, i don't think it should be allowed but it is popped in in that scenario. the ability to use cookies should be allowed because it is the value of the advertising.

and i came up with a third. the ability for you to opt out which exists today should be part of that. the majority of those exist. >> if you are going to draft a law you have to start with what you are trying to address? what societal goal of you trying to further? greater privacy is too amorphous. it means something different to every person. in my view, this issue has gone more scrutiny given developments in social me viet and advances in technology and volume of

data, these issues being considered at a high focus for 30 years or even a hundred years. you have to look at where we have been and if something needs to be changed what would be different. i would take off of the table non sensitive advertising and marketing that provide opt out choice. there is no reason. is clear that is the heart of the american economy. that is how people get new customers. many entrepreneur is know that the first thing you do is figure out who might be interested in your product. won't have anyone up in your business. our country is built on new business and innovation. i would take that off of the table. on the other side of the equation the fair credit reporting act talked about eligibility criteria. you have to make sure if people are using data tied back to you for eligibility purposes, not

advertising of health products but are you going to get credit or not, the expectations have to be built in. outside of that you look at specific uses. that is why there's such a challenge in figuring out what a privacy law is. you have 70 approaches tapping this wide net over uses of data. it is like having one law regulates all society. one last point and i will stop talking like a lawyer. there was a hearing in one of the committees recently. they had a group -- there was somebody in the environment talking about internet and another person talking about health. different types of data in the name of privacy. i do so much with data in this

industry. it was no different than having a hearing that had somebody from federal emergency disaster and somebody from the airlines. that is not a good example. the coal industry. three and related subjects and say we will stitch one law around it because data is so omnipresent in our society you can't drop one on top of all of it. that is why you have struggles. >> i will go anti lawyer. an area of notification and harmonization. i don't think anybody disagrees there's benefit to harmonization. if it came at the expense of greater security standards a don't think that is something many folks are willing to have on the table but five years ago

i testified in virginia. i am a country lawyer from virginia and i don't cross the river unless i have to end state senators said you seem opposed to this bill. i apologize, i am not opposed to the bill at all. i thought everything you said went against the bill. i said i like these bills. every time you pass one someone has to pay $50,000 for what it means for their business. >> my firm it is only $40,000. >> in the context of breach notification we have 50 states where you run a gauntlet of figuring out what you were going to do, why you are going to do it and if the purpose of those laws encourage business to invest in security those 47 laws are accomplish that purpose. they are making the investment. from the low hanging fruit

perspective we had some harmonization. it is not an easy fix. the second piece would be not to create private right of action. when i said one size fits many and we think about class-action litigation that class representative is lebron james of the consumer world. the thing that causes them to be a plaintiff is not necessarily something each of us would agree with. when we do, it leads to enormous cost, significant decrease in innovation over problems that are not documented to exist. when you make lawyers entrepreneurs you are going to create incentives that are not necessarily healthy for the rest

of us. >> the pendulum swings too far back so innovation is stifled to the point that you put a market back not just six months but a year or two and figure out how to make this work again. it does bad things for business. slightly off of this point i am amazed by direct mail. we get talked-about knowing so much but we don't know nearly what other people are doing advertising. >> i want to double back to one of the issues i hoped to get into. it is interesting. congress wants a pound of flesh on data security and so do privacy groups in washington. a lot of folks agree there needs

to be a pre-emptive federal standard to replace the patchwork at the state level but also hand down security to say companies should be doing x, y and z to prevent the reach that lawmakers seized on what happened with sony as an example of that industry might not be doing what lawmakers want them to do. looking at that criticism is there any arrangement industry groups might hand down security rules or is the no-holds-barred situation? >> let me react on two levels. real-world example six seven years ago the federal trade commission has been saying you need reasonable information security. hundreds of my clients would say what does this mean? are had the opportunity to talk

to really smart folks at the agency about what that meant and they were very circumspect about their ability to provide guidance on what reasonable information security men to. it is back to the point stuart made. if we had a federal standard that settle security should be reasonable the devil is in the details. what will happen quite predictably is we will overinvest in security because a matter of practice if you had a security breach your security couldn't have been that good you had a breach. hindsight is 20/20 is a real concern. what it means is business will spend money on things that are not helpful to us as consumers

and users. i will give a simple illustration. if the below size on an airplane is wrong and the federal standards as it should be 18 x 18 inches and needs to be goose filled and you get a hypoallergenic pill we can't keep the plane in the air so every third one crashes, why focus on the panel? we have to keep the plane in the air. tony hit the nail on the head. privacy is non-partisan. it is hard to be against privacy. we all like it. all of us from industry representing industry have to take that into account. i am not sure there's a standard we can legislate. i am not confident people agree on what a standard is. >> a slightly different perspective not meant to conflict with that. i represent various companies,

trade associations in that dialogue. there has been support for wrote uniform national law from the business community speaking broadly. part of what has brought it down is what legislation should focus on is consistent standard so companies comply with one standard when they get notification across the country. is well understood what that is. it would be good for business and consumers but the proposals keep going beyond that and adding extraneous detail where business saying we don't need at 51 standard. we will live with what we have which will not be the best thing

for consumers. maybe one of the state laws have a higher notification standard when you have to notify. i can't do anything less and the members -- consumers are not losing protection. what they failed to articulate is most of the bill's mandate data security standards across -- apply a cross-country. only in one or two states, two states have data security requirements. you're adding data security requirements in 48 states. some of what is reasonable needs to be fleshed out but it has worked and is an issue but has worked in financial institution type of privacy. they keep wanting to throw in stuff that turns into security registration sunni restrict types of data which would

ultimately where the data is used for fraud would wind up with a scenario. to stop fraud you need more rather than less data to validate his somebody is. i think we could get there and we may get their. >> information security company has spent a lot of time around data breaches. did a lot of credit card data with fbi. there is a good amount of legislation. the reality is the business community is more interested in making sure those breaches don't occur than legislators are. credit card companies work with banks and retailers. they have a huge level of commitment in a structured program that government could never figure out how to mandate because they don't understand the complexity of the business.

businesses have benefits to make sure there is no breach of security. disclosure is a big deal. there is an additional incentive for the company. it is that good place where business has done a good job getting ahead of that problem with additional legislation that is the issue. >> it is not clear to me that any of the bills would have changed what happened where there was a high level of security. >> we have time for a few more questions. in the back. [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> i want to make sure i heard you correctly. [inaudible] >> we have the federal e sign act. for virtually all transactions it isn't an issue and businesses

create ways in which they work around it whether there is articles of corporations or otherwise. i am not sure i would agree with the assumption that these signatures are limited or preventing business. we have a country lawyer from virginia whether we have a contract or not. federal law has done a good job showing we do have contracts. those are enforceable. >> others in the audience? in the front? >> you were talking earlier about the data and value but i wondered about instances of collective action. we should make a lot of decisions about traffic.

if one person didn't want to do that, creating a chapter. my question is in instances like that where consumers -- more complicated than that, are there situations where we could be justified taking that data out or making a law you have to -- >> i don't think business the government might say that. from a business perspective my view is you should have the right to opt out. for me not to collect your data for specific reason. that is fair and reasonable. if the government requires a national card that has data on it, it is more likely than a

business person tracking you regardless what you do. >> the business community is not mandating your salary or any stuff that goes into tax information and consumers operating if that happened but the government mandates it and consumers don't have a choice because of the benefit to pay their share. >> one thing that happens is business will decide whether to offer or not offer the product. there are products where having the choice is a requirement. great example where we have seen that is in the area of websites directed at children and collection of information for children. there's a new proposed rules for great consideration.

you don't have to look far if you have been working in the internet economy to realize starting a business is focused on children and on line or on a mobile apps is really complicated and easy to get wrong. if you are an entrepreneur and want to launch an apps and stuart says it is a great idea but the last recorded fine was north of $1 million and you have $25,000 to start the company is a real challenge or barrier. we are for choice wherever we can but there will be times you decide figuring it out is too hard and you will go the other way. >> another question in the back earlier.

>> a real world question. we do survey research -- you created a panel of people on facebook of that and for the survey. my question is what about taking them off and matching them to a keynote address? giving permission on facebook -- do we conduct a mission -- response rates are kind of low. people have to watch the content. do you have any thoughts? >> our lunch speaker from chicago said our task as chief

data officer is a predicate that public information belongs to the public and we create tools that make it available. i will assume your question begins with the idea should we have any restriction that prevents me from going out and learning about people? there are a lot of strong policy reasons not to have that be the base line but the crux of what you said goes back to what bryan said. the people on your panel understand and agree it is hard for them to critique what you did. it is when they didn't really know and they were really embarrassed or surprised that create problems. the way i think about this, will identify risks and shift risks

and remediator risks or accept the risks. virtually every privacy problem is solved if the person said it is okay and they understood what they are doing your risk as of business is low. >> the legal answer is it would be determined by facebook's terms of use. once you get past that it is determined by facebook and your privacy notice and what consumers understand and what you told them you would be doing but if all of that is permitted there's nothing that would restrict you from doing that other than looking at industry self regulation, network advertising initiative. with online data. >> there wouldn't be any

limitation and you still have to get back to the real world and are consumers going to care? will they be ok with this? >> we are almost out of time. one last question. we talk about data security and privacy and where regulators should or shouldn't go. we have a couple months left. a lot is happening in washington including the supercommittee that such a lot of air out of the room. one of the chances we see some data breach or online privacy effort actually move somewhere in congress this year? >> on data security a 50% chance something could cross the finish line but a lot to work on. on a broader privacy bill there should be a lot of hearings and discussion but it is a more

complicated debate. it will be informed by reports of the commerce department. >> stuart hit the nail on the head in terms of short-term prognostication. longer-term there are a couple factors that suggest to me that we will see more regulation rather than less. there are two that are important. one is we will evolve a consensus on reasonable security and what level of privacy is important and the discourse will continue and we will get closer to figuring out the one size that fits most. the second thing we haven't talked about is increasingly

u.s. companies have difficulty doing business abroad because of security issues so there are tremendous incentives lining up towards harmonization. one of my mentors said i don't need a good law. i just need a clear one. the challenge for us is to get a clear lot and a good one and that will be a tough road but over time longer term we will see more regulation as this evolves. >> lastly will we see any chance of data security or privacy this year? >> i won't -- i would be surprised if we see either of those. data security is more likely earlier. i don't see it coming this year. >> i want to thank everyone. our three panelists. thank you for joining. i bie