african-american in the history of the united states army. sportswriter and author john feinstein discusses his latest book. video journalist michelle fields of the daily caller talks about her video coverage of stories, including occupy wall street. >> r. series of q&a interviews continues tomorrow with reducer director charles evans junior on his new movie addiction inc. the film is about victor noble and his aunt acted discovery of an ingredient in tobacco which makes cigarettes more addictive. you can see the program tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span two. up next on "the communicators", google's new privacy policy. then on booktv, a look back at

pearl harbor and world war ii. we will start with craig shirley's book, december 1941. after that, pearl harbor christmas. later, bert and anita poulsen talk about their book. this week on "the communicators", a look at google's new privacy policy. >> on march 1 of this year, google changed its privacy policy, and that is our topic this week on "the communicators." markham erickson is the director of the internet coalition. mr. erickson, can you explain what google did to change its privacy policy and wide? >> google announced about six weeks ago that it was preparing to change its privacy policy. the first time a company that size has given that much time and engagement in that education

campaign. what they did is they took privacy policies -- diverse privacy policies that apply to 70 some products that google provides. they consolidated them into one single privacy policy that was uniform across all of those products. >> what is the benefit to google in doing this? >> the benefit to google is first of all, you only have to manage one privacy policy. they would also say that they are able to provide more targeted services -- more useful services as to their users. for instance, if you are using their gmail product and you are inviting people to a party that they may know who some of your friends are based on your interactions on google's social network and suggestions you might want to invite, and they're able to do that because they are working with the u-boat on their social network as well as their e-mail product.

for the user, what they would say is that it provides the user with one single privacy policy rather than having to navigate 70 different ones, and it provides the user with a more consistent uniform experience across all of their different platforms. where they can get more targeted information, advertisements, i each platform. it will be a better expense for the user as well. >> before we introduce our other guests, what is the open internet coalition? >> the open internet coalition is the coalition of leading internet companies. most of the big platforms, social media companies, including google as well as small internet companies and startups, it is a coalition that i run out of my law firm. >> also joining us on "the communicators" is marc rotenberg. mr. rosenberg, what is your groups view on the new policy? >> we opposed it. we think that the right way to

think about what google did in terms of the change and service, in other words, before march 1, google had different terms of service for each of their products. if you were using e-mail, it collected your personal information to provide e-mail service. if you were using youtube, it collected your information to provide youtube service. the google wanted to do combine that information from its different products, and so as of march 1, the terms of service were going to change. they would combine all the data, they did not give people a choice. they could essentially stop you from googling. we objected, as do many others. >> what is the damage that could be done to a user? >> in the first instance, there is genuine concern about the companies commitment to users -- the company's commitment to the privacy of users.

those privacy policies are collected in the terms of service, essentially, is what users rely on when they select a service. if they choose gmail, for example, over another service, and google turns around and says, well we have one policy before, but now we're changing it, the user is in a very awkward position. the other thing that the company -- companies typically do, is collect a lot of data to lock the user in. your address book, which you build up in the context of a particular service, makes it unlikely or certainly not easy for you to move to another service. so we think it was unfair. we actually brought a suit in washington. we sued the federal trade commission, which surprised people. it surprised people. they said why don't you sue google? we had urged the ftc to pursue their specters of privacy.

we have seen that google violated that order. we sued them. >> what should they have done in your view of? should they have sent okay, here's what we want to do? you can opt out of this or -- how should they have done a? >> i think the best way to have done that would've been by opt in. google could have said to users, listen, we have a new approach, we think it's going to provide benefit to you. we think that you will get advertising that you're interested in. we understand we have a commitment to you right now in terms of our current privacy gulf are. but we would like to give me the opportunity to choose our new integrated google platform. users might have said, that sounds very good. i'll sign up. certainly, we would not have objected if google had done that. so much of the internet is about choice.

i think the less good alternative would've been for google to say we really want to do this, we are not sure everyone will agree, or accept it, but we respect that some people might not. we will let those folks opt out. before march 1, you can make a choice if you want to opt out -- this is how you do it. google didn't even do that. i think the other point worth making -- differing a little bit with markham's earlier comment, when they spoke proposed a similar change back in 2009, that drew public discussion. people said they did not like india. facebook said if you don't like it, were not going to do it. another option for google would've been not to go forward with the change after they heard the criticism. but they took none of those options. no opt in, no opt out. the withdrawal of the proposal. >> we don't have google, but markham, do you want to respond as to how they should be perceived?

>> you don't opt out of the privacy policy. the policy is something the company states how they are conducting their business. when you go to the "washington post" website, you can look at their privacy policy, and you don't opt out of a policy. the response to mark, and i respect where he is coming from, but i think mark's point of view in this space and has been is a different point of view was how we handle privacy is the inception of the commercial internet. i think mark objects to that. his criticism isn't about google. it's about the privacy policies across the commercial internet. google's policy is consistent with the policies of all the major social networks, companies like microsoft and yahoo!. if you think about facebook, they have a lot of different products and services under one platform. google is a platform but the products are across different pages. you don't go to 21 google site

to get one service, like you would with yahoo! or microsoft. what google says we are going to do with those social networks and portals do, which is to have one policy that applies to our products. the trade-off is this, and this is one that i think marc wrestles with. the vast majority of consumers, 90%, are okay with the concept that the social networks and companies like google provides free services, like web based e-mail services, map services, and they do it for free because they are able to sell non-personally identifiable information about the things you do on the internet. whether you go to sports sites or shopping sites, they are able to sell advertisers that this user -- again, it is not personally identifiable -- this user happens to like sports sites. so they are able to sell you as

that are more relevant, and because of that ad revenue, they are able to provide those free services. >> the thing people understand -- [talking over each other] >> people understand that it is more relevant to them. if you're into sports, you don't want to get into shopping sites. the ads are relevant and it works with companies to provide the services, and works for the users because they are getting more targeted information. marc has a very european approach about privacy, which is that the information itself -- data and information each have much more control over, even if it is not identifiable, we have a tort-based system, it is an the system in and of itself, it is the way you use the system that would be appropriate -- it would harm you. the expectations that users have

and what google is doing is consistent with the expectations that you have when you go to the internet. when google announced that they were changing their policy, users could have decided to revolt. they did not. in the facebook situation, there was a lot of consternation. there hasn't been a lot of consternation because what google did. the federal trade commission has objected to mark's lawsuit. the federal trade commission governs this space. they are able to with several of these larger internet companies, through their statutory authority. that is the appropriate governance here. we should have some privacy legislation -- we should have some a more robust frameworks of these congregated privacy policies -- and they are comforted. that way they could be put under

a system where you have a federal government's seal of approval or practices that are consistent with user expectation >> [talking over each other] >> i don't know where to begin. i think that markham is making this stuff up. let me try to answer some of the points that he made. first of all, this is hardly my view with respect to the concerns about the change in google's privacy policy. you have 36 state attorney general's objecting. i don't think in europe, i think those are states within the u.s. congressional leaders and -- congressional leaders in the democratic and republican parties objecting. we have others objecting from other places. i would challenge mark -- i

can't come up with one. i think they have let themselves wide open to a lot of criticism. here is the most interesting. markham says that the intermediate users have accepted this idea. but they give up personal information for free use of the internet. i would like to ask him to put some back behind the research and reports and studies that lends credence to that claim. the reason i say that is because i looked closely at the pew study on internet life conducted -- they conducted a very extensive survey. the most comprehensive review that has been done in years. they found first of all that 92% of american adults use a google product every day. the vast majority of search is

done on google. they found that 60% of people using this product object to personalization, object to page ranking based on personal interest. many were not okay that personal data was being collected to generate search results. so, on this critical point, apart from the fact that what google did on march 1, was widely opposed by just about everyone who considered the issue except for -- i think, a small group of washington lobbyist, as to the internet users, i think there is a clear majority against what google is doing and other companies handling personal data this way. >> i think the problem is we mix apples and oranges. google is not sharing personal information under any widely accepted standard that we have in the u.s. government with a third-party. they share anonymized information. it is too delivered more

targeted advertising. >> google keeps user to invite search history for 18 months. it is -- it has to do with google deciding to anonymized search history. even they would think that it is not anonymous -- [talking over each other] >> this is where we are talking about apples and oranges respectfully. it is absolutely wrong. google does not share personally identifiable information with third parties. today collect personally identifiable information that they keep? yes. [talking over each other] >> you just said a moment ago that they don't -- use personal information to -- >> you are mixing apples and oranges. -- >> are they third-party? >> what you're confusing is law

enforcement access to information that not only google has, but every website that collects personally identifiable information, shopping sites that collect credit card information, places that collect her dress. the government has access to that upon subpoenas or lawful product process under our surveillance laws. [talking over each other] some information you can answer. when they get subpoenaed -- >> yes. >> then they are required to do so. if you object to that, and i agree about your concerns in that regard, we should change the law that governs when law enforcement can access and how they access personal identifiable information. i agree that there is concerns there. that is not what this issue is about. >> that is absolutely what this is about -- let me answer these

points. you say things that aren't true. if i don't have the opportunity to respond, they're going to think what you are saying is correct. let's consider the point you're trying to make. what you are trying to argue is that it is different when law enforcement gets access to information that google keeps about its users versus giving information to third-party providers. however, and this is the key point -- google makes the decision to keep far more information about entry users than any other company does, and because they have made that decision, because they retain more data about google users, they leave those same people more runnable to those law enforcement request that they know inevitably will come. other companies, which care about this issue make the decision not to keep so much information. they can delete search histories in today's, anonymize within six months. google says no, we don't care about that issue and we're going

to obtain the data. this is a very important point to understand. when google chose on march 1, to combine the user data, they also made users more vulnerable. it means that it's not just a youtube users information that will be disclosed, it means that they googleusers information that will be exposed. >> that is absolutely wrong. i'm not sure why you're saying what you're saying. there is no investigation against youtube. there are several lawsuits. it is governed by an entirely different statute and framework than when the government asked for that information. under our law today, the civil access are not able to get information for -- that's what they said when viacom sued

youtube. it exactly wrong that you said users are under a threat of access under youtube viewing habits in some sort of trend of investigation could that is flat wrong. there is a criminal standard, as you know, that applies to government access of information. in fact, google as well as many other large internet companies are leading the charge to amend the laws to ensure that there is -- that a subpoena is required for personal identafiable information to make expectations about what is private for them, keeping documents or storing other things, the same framework that they would have if they were seeking to get that document -- the government, that is, from your home. that is the appropriate framework did google collects more information about users, mostly because the they are one of the bigger companies. they have more information coming in. if you compare the information they collect to a smaller search engine like ask.com, ask.com

does not get the volume of information that google does. part of the reason that they're getting so much information is because they have more users. when the government accesses that information, when they are the third-party, google actually has fought the government more times than on the any other internet company that i know of to say that users have a reasonable expectation about privacy in the space. i think what most viewers are thinking about when they think about the space is actually nongovernmental third-party entities. commercial entities and what information they can access. in that space, they don't get any personal information. that is the case. >> mr. robber, i think this is a good lively discussion. let's take up this second point, which is third-party disclosure to commercial actors. your argument is that you want to give a lot of credit to google for not exposing third

parties. google is dominant to crossing so many internet services, it doesn't matter whether they disclose to third parties. what matters is the sharing within the largest internet arm in the world between an e-mail service -- a video platform, between a photo sharing service. all of these are google's services. what google does by combining that information is to consolidate its monopoly position. it would be adverse to google's interest to disclose use -- user information to third parties. google is not interested in creating competitors for use of google services. it is completely consistent with their model to keep the information internal. this actually underscores the significant march 1 decision. like google did in addition to changing the terms of service and inducing the privacy protection for internet users, it also consolidated its control

over so many of these key essential internet sectors. that is troubling to me. not only for privacy reasons, but also for reasons of competition and innovation. i think the internet does comprise -- with new firms can come along with a new idea and what google is doing now by combining policies is making it more difficult for others to participate in the internet economy, and the thought that somehow it is a benefit that they are not disclosing user data to third parties, it is actually a reflection of their income as much control as possible. >> this is what is so frustrating about this conversation. you have acknowledged that google does not share and it is not in their interest to do so with third parties. i thought that's what this debate was about. any payment to say that the fact that they're not sharing with third parties is troubling because it prevents competition. that is a totally different issue, and it is actually one that is being looked at that is a totally different

issue, and it is actually one that is being looked at and should be looked at by competition council in various jurisdictions, and google should be looked at, and they do. they have to defend themselves on when they are acting lawfully or not. the competition policy cited is totally different than the privacy. >> marc, let me ask you a question. we currently have privacy guidelines for those individual services. they consolidated it. how does that allow them to consolidate? >> key to understanding the privacy policy is that individuals provide information that is mrs. or for the service they are signing up for. we know this in quite a bit of detail, specifically with regard to google, because of what happened with introduction of google was last year. when google was trying to enter the social network space and they had a large base of gmail users and they wanted to introduce a social network service and they were not sure

how to popularize it, they basically decided to convert their gmail subscribers into social network google buzz subscribers. the personal address information that was in the gmail account holders information was made available to launch the service. we went to the ftc and said this is unfair. it is terribly unfair because people who sign up for gmail sign-up for an e-mail service. they are finding personal information that they thought was in an address book accessible on the internet. google, interestingly, agreed with us. they won't say that publicly, but they conceded it was a mistake to introduce it as they did. the ftc launched an investigation, it agreed with us, required eight conference a pricey program for all of google's programs based on what happened with google buzz. this is a key point that bears restating. the information the people have provided for an e-mail service,

they didn't expect to be used for a social network service. when google came along at the end of january of this year and said that information that you provided for gmail -- we're going to make it available across all of our services, we understandably -- [talking over each other] >> we understandably went to the ftc. we said we cannot do this. the case that we lost was in on the merit. the judge agreed with us that the google changed raised -- and her words, concerns. she simply comes concluded that the reports did not have the ability to take enforcement action. >> does that surprise you? >> we thought that this consent decree had not been approved by the court. but it was a final word from an agency. we thought we had a good argument. >> tokamak. >> an unfortunate position for the ftc actually says in a nondiscretionary fashion that

finds imposed. the final order should be enforced. the agency is required to enforce its orders. as i said, we lost not on the merit. >> coming back to markham, honestly we have differences, but i think it is very important in this debate between the privacy groups and people representing the industry not to lose sight of the interest of users. it really is there data that we are talking about. how personal information is being collected by firms. how it is being used, what are the privacy's being respected. >> markham erickson, personal information, mark, is not being shared with commercial third parties. it is not with his policy is about. google has entered into a consent agreement with the ftc that is one of the most robust. several other brands have done

the same thing. they are subject to 20 years of audits from the ftc to review their policy. the reason, i suspect, your organization went to the courts to try to get action, was because you were getting rebuffed him the federal trade commission that has the authority and space and the ability to consent it there is a violation to the agreement -- they will take appropriate action. it was inappropriate to go to the courts. that is what the ftc said. >> marc rotenberg, dc other companies using the google model going forward? >> i don't think that there's any other companies that handle it the way that google does. clearly facebook is a competitor. i think we can understand a lot of what google is doing today in terms of their concerns about facebook having greater control over what is a battle for advertising dollars. both companies rely on

advertising dollars. that is their core business. they need to provide services that will draw users. no other company is in google's position. >> as private companies -- and if they are clearly stating what their policies are up front, shouldn't they be allowed to pursue? >> i think they can if it is fair to the user. we have to understand, for example, how these policies operate. one of these business concerns with the federal trade commission is concerned with is bait and switch. they operate within this field. a company can take to customer that we have a great privacy policy. you can sign up with us. we won't do anything wrong. the user says okay. i will pick you guys. then they build up a address book and social network and platforms, in a few months later, a year later, the company says that we have a new business model now. we're going to handle things

differently. we're going to change the privacy policy -- we think it is really going to be good for you and you will like it. what we promise you before -- what we promised in the past we are not going to do anymore. is the sense that companies will try to draw them in with an attractive policy, but once they have them, then the rules change. >> markham erickson, final words. then were out of time. >> well, i think that when a company spends six weeks educating its user base about a change of policy -- that they believe is helpful to users and will make their product editor, they should not be punished for the fact that they tried to set the expectations -- not baiting and switching anybody, that same to their community and highlighting this is what we are about to do six weeks from now. that kind of bait and switch tactic should be gone after -- it has been in the past, rightly so. this is simply not one of