>> yes, a little over a month. >> what is your experience so far? >> it has been positive. as we talked previously, i am returning to the ftc. i have been here for 12 years previously. it is a big homecoming for me come in the way. i am playing a different role as a commissioner. i have enjoyed reconnecting with people that i have known in the past, but also getting briefed on all the new activity is and investigations and projects that are being undertaken. >> what were your previous projects and 10th positions? >> my last position was head of the ftc planning. before that, i was an attorney adviser to commissioner, and then i worked with the general counsel office. >> how did you get started with the ftc. >> i was very fortunate when i went to law school. i had several professors were very inspiring to me in the area of the ftc. and i graduated, i worked on the

u.s. court of appeals in the dc circuit. i enjoyed that very much. then when i got the opportunity to start at the ftc and the general counsel's office, made the leap over to bear. i knew i wanted to practice in that area. >> we are catching up with you here in boston at the annual cable show. why are you up your? >> well, i am up here because i think there is a lot going on at the ftc and the ftc is paying attention to the communications and media. when i was head of the office of policy planning, i headed up the internet access tax force. we look at issues involving internet access over broadband and certainly new technologies, new ways of bringing services to consumers. definitely cable plays an important role in that. >> what are some of those issues that you are concerned with or that the ftc is looking into? >> some of the issues that we are looking into involved privacy.

we are also looking into -- we always look at the bread-and-butter issues of advertising and competitive issues, competition. their platforms right now. there's a big amount of convergence going on. separate industries trying to compete with each other. to make good policy for consumers, we really need to understand what is happening in the industry and market. >> when it comes to conversions, commissioner maureen ohlhausen, are there concerns that you have that you have some personal concerns about the industry and the overlaps that we see? >> not so much concerns. i think there are great potentials to increase competition for consumers when you start having previously separate industries competing to be the broadband provider and voice provider. one of the issues that takes a little complication to the fcc is we have a common carrier's exemption. and so some of the industries that are common carriers, that can create an issue for people

to be able to address something. basically, the ftc has been able to reach a lot of areas in advertising and trust issues. that is something that is a little bit more north. >> now, very quickly, describe common carrier. >> a common carrier would be airlines, railroads, it is an industry that has the care of all customers. cable service has not been defined as a common carrier service. once cable starts to compete with traditional carriers, that can create an issue. >> have there been efforts to make broadband a common carrier? >> to the ftc and the decision, basically they said they were not going to classify broadband

as a common carrier service. >> maureen ohlhausen, where does the ftc intersect with the sec on issues? do you work with the other commissioners? how does that work? >> the ftc and fcc work together on a number of issues. right now, they worked together on privacy issues. we work on telemarketing issues. the do not call rule, which the sec played a great role in as well. any issues involving advertising, certain billing issues, we have worked on addressing those issues. the ftc can't reach a common carrier, but they can reach someone else in the chain that might be involved. >> what is the status on the recent privacy report that came out by the ftc.

did you sign onto it as a new commissioner? >> i did not. that was issued before i came on the commission. basically, the ftc, they are primarily enforcement agency. they have brought many good cases in the system of privacy area. and they have reached settlements. some of the primacy promises that they made to consumers and trying on of those promises. the report discussed the was a lot of those issues and the need for more thinking in the system of privacy. the report also included a recommendation to congress to adopt general privacy legislation. i did not sign onto that. that is an area that i would like to explore fully before i feel comfortable making similar recommendations. >> now, you did not sign on because of the newness of your position or because you disagree with that? >> a little bit of both. i feel the need, while i support

the fcc's enforcement and paying attention to this issue and looking closely at it, i really need to educate myself fully on what are some of the harms that are occurring in the market that the ftc can't reach in the market right now or other statutes can't reach right now. and whether how broad general privacy solution should be. also, the ftc for competition agency. that is something we need to take a look at. the new legislation that might have an impact on consumers and new information that might sharpen communication outweigh. >> maureen ohlhausen, what about do not track when it comes to online issues? we all know about the cell phone issues when it comes to do not track. what about when it comes to cell phones and online?

where is the ftc in that issue? >> the ftc is looking at that issue and has been very supportive of some of the regulatory efforts that are underway. there is a technology-based effort that the w3c is undertaking. i have been meeting with some of the members in the past week to find out what the status is. there is also digital advertising alliance is a large program underway. there are some developments that i need to educate myself on. where things are, what progress has been made. the ftc has come in the report, recommended, it didn't say regulation is through self-regulation. but it is a alternative. >> part of that report is that companies should make privacy the default. do you agree with that? >> i think one of the tenants of the report -- >> of do not track?

>> yes. it is a little more than that. i would say one of the tenants of the report is that companies should include privacy by design. when they are coming up with products and services, they think about the privacy implications right at the beginning. they need to do that. it is very good for companies to undertake. they are collecting information that they don't need or if they are storing it away and it is not secure, that is something they need to pay attention to. i think consumers who care about privacy. and it would be better if privacy was considered as one of the principals at the beginning. that's one of the things. as to whether do not track is an opt in or opt out issue, that depends on consumers own preferences could whether most consumers don't want to be tracked or they don't care, they just don't have the option not to be tracked in doing certain activities. one of those things i would like to find out more about myself. >> maureen ohlhausen, what

issues are on the horizon for the ftc that we haven't talked about? >> well, the ftc and the you mentioned they are very concerned with privacy. i was there in the '90s. as the internet became a consumer experience, the ftc got up unction ahead on that issue. what we see now is that so much internet access has moved to the handset. consumers access it over their smartphones. information collecting what location information and things like that. the ftc needs to understand the challenges the consumer space and benefits of online access through the handset system. the ftc is doing some workshops.

>> should there be different standards for wired broadband and wireless broadband? >> i think it depends on what you mean by different standards. for example there is a time to -- the challenges it will might have a small screen. there might be a different way to inform consumers that you need a different environment. the ftc pays attention to consumers point of view. what kind of information doesn't regional consumer need to make an informed choice. if the technology is different, if the experience of the consumer is different, then that might suggest there is different standards. but i don't think that generally you have to use them to create a different set of standards for all. >> most people in the ftc are lawyers. you are.

did you read the user agreement? do you read the user agreements -- the redoes? >> i certainly read them. it depends. i've read up for gmail and i have a neglected facebook page. it is out there, but i don't update it very much. i did read the privacy settings for that. when purchasing a book for a tv or something like that, i don't always check of the privacy policy that. i am not specifically concerned about the information i'm providing them and the way it can be used. >> do you think that there is an effort or do you think there should be an effort to simplify those agreements? that way nonlawyers can understand a little bit better? >> i think that would be a good goal for companies to pursue. you want to strike a balance between simplicity, ease of use,

contributing to the high-level points. some people really care about the details. one of the things that we have in this market is kind of a consumer group that pays attention to the twists and turns in a privacy policy. one of the things the ftc has suggested another context is a layered approach. that way we get the high-level issues at the top. the bullet points in the machen week into an in-depth discussion for people who really want to know. but not necessarily something the ftc should require? >> it has yet to be determined. we cemented really all has to go back to what harm is being brought to consumers. if the consumers are being harmed, then the ftc would be to look appropriately about. a lot of the information on financial information, medical information, things like that, they already have some protection. the ftc has pursued a number of cases in those areas.

it would have to be additional productions. >> speaking of medical information, the use of medical records online, is that something that the federal trade commission is working on? >> the ftc actually started paying attention to this a number of years ago when i was there. you have to have a hipaa, which you had back then, and use of medical records and there was a question about what applied there. it turned out the ftc, it was going to be the main regulator there. this changes as people pay attention to the issue. i think that the high-tech side actually addresses that. >> maureen ohlhausen, one of two republican commissioners. three democrats currently

because the president is a democrat. what is the level on the commission? >> i think it is very dead. the ftc, most of the work that we do, it is unanimous, bipartisan. it is very dead. there is reason, which is to have a diverse viewpoint. there will be times when we agree on something. i think we all understand and respect each other's views. the way good policy is made. to have an open and frank discussion among policymakers. i think it is a functional and bipartisan agency. >> when we talk with members of the federal petitions, we talked about the sunshine laws. >> it is hard to have

discussions if you can only talk to one person at a time. but we use it, attorney advisors and others, to talk to the other offices. in some ways, you play a game of telephone tag, where the message can get a little distorted. the ftc actually does occasionally have meetings where all the commissioners get together to talk and it is on the record, though it is not public. that is a way we can address that. we are meeting to discuss an issue, not necessarily to take an action. that is an option we can pursue. >> maureen ohlhausen, one of two commissioners on the federal trade commission. joining us here at the cable show in boston. >> here on "communicators", we are joined by another member on the federal trade commission. this is julie brill. she's a democrat. commissioner julie brill, if you he would start by giving us a sonata synopsis of your

biography. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i have been on the commission two years, little bit over two years. i was appointed by president obama. for about 20 plus years, prior to coming to the federal trade commission, i was a regulator. i did state law enforcement for a state attorney general. first, i worked for over 20 years in the vermont attorney general's office. the network for about 14 months in the north carolina attorney general's office. in both positions and states, i focused on consumer protection and competition regulation and enforcement work. that is exactly what i get to do at the federal trade commissionz now i get to focus on all the policy issues and the law enforcement issues that we did in the state, but i get to do it on a national level now. >> what brings you to the cable

show here in boston? >> the cable show is one example of a forum of industry that is actively engaged in innovation. we are really pushing the forefront of innovation. they come together and show their stuff. they are here to show off. i am here to see all the wonderful ways in which industry is innovating to bring consumers new products and services. we begin to think about what issues any of these products and services might raise from our perspective. with respect to consumer protection. >> have any issues and raised in her mind as he wandered the floor? >> i think one of the biggest issues as we see as we wander the floor, is how everyone is moving to the internet.

everyone is going to be offering their services no longer per box top or whatever, they will offer that, but they are all moving to what will be a very powerful platform and a platform where consumers will really be able to actually access services with any mechanism or device they are using. what it says to me is that many of these large platform providers, whether you are talking about a cable company or a exceptional network -- a social network, but we do a lot of social media, for instance. they are all involved in providing broad services to consumers. lots of information going out to consumers. they are also able to collect a lot of information about consumers. i think that we need to, as law-enforcement, and an entity that focuses on competition

issues, we need to look at the ways in which these players are actually treating consumers the same way, gathering information, gathering information in a similar way, and how we want to be thinking about the competition that they are engaged in with each other. and also, what it might mean for consumers in terms of how they are collecting information, and what information they're collecting to show ads and things like that. a lot of these issues come to me as i walked up lower. >> there were two issues that struck me in your answer there. convergence and privacy. >> just? if we could start with convergence. there is a current spectrum deal, something that the ftc doesn't exactly deal with, but there is a current spectrum deal between cable companies and verizon. is that a competition with convergence issue that concerns you? >> it is something that there are lots of folks in washington are thinking about.

i am more thinking about not so much about that specific issue, although, it could raise competition issues that we might want to look at. i'm thinking about really the large platform providers might have are not how they assess consumers actually in terms of the second issue that you raise from the privacy issue. and what it means for consumers to have all of these different players, who are converging to a business model in washington that says we are going to use consumers information to provide them services, to help fund the services that we are providing, but we are going to be marketing to them based on their information, and what does that mean. that is the kind of convergence that i am looking at in terms of from a consumer perspective, how are consumers being treated by these entities, and what would and what should we be thinking about. >> commissioner julie brill, what is the status with the google privacy issue?

>> writes. so we are in the process, actually with respect to google, we have finalized the consent order. >> consumers never expected that. a lot of private information came out of that where consumers come of their most frequent e-mail contacts might have involved and potential employer, all sorts of potentials and privacy concerns. we put google under an order that requires them to develop a broad privacy program that will cover google buzz and all of

google's activities and services. that includes youtube and everything. they have to have a comprehensive privacy program. they also have to be subject to audits for the next 20 years than an outside entity will be looking at their conference of privacy program. that is the status right now of what is probably being done with respect to google on privacy. we are always looking at new issues and other issues with respect to google. >> now, do you see the google sediment, as it were, as a model for other companies? >> absolutely. in fact, facebook is also involved. they spoke and the changes made in 2000 and to its privacy policy, how it was using consumer information. it very much picks up on the permissions that provisions that

are in the google order. for instance, it, too, would require facebook have a comprehensive privacy program that covers all of facebook services and be subject to outside audits for conference of privacy program for 20 years. that order is still proposed. it hasn't been finalized yet. >> julie brill, self-regulation is a term we have heard around here could especially appear at the cable show. what is your view of that? >> i think that self-regulation can be very helpful. i think self-regulation is a tool that can be much more responsive to changes in the marketplace in a quicker way than regulation. we, at the federal trade commission, had urged certain segments of industry to engage in very robust self-regulatory

efforts. for instance, do not track is an issue that is essentially right now a self regulatory model. we have been pushing industries to give consumers tools, so that they can make choices about how their information would be used, as they are traveling across different websites or across different services on the internet. that is a model -- the self regulatory model can be a powerful one. one of the things that i look for in any have self-regulation context, is whether or not it is robust. is it providing good protection for consumers. and is a providing good enforcement. so if they are not doing so, what are the consequences. will we be able to take action of the federal trade commission? if so, it looks like a robust software delivery model.

>> do think you have the ear of congress at this time? >> with respect to privacy issues, absolutely. i think it is not only our work on privacy, because we have been doing a commencement of work on that, but the administration has also raised the level of the discussion because the obama administration has come out with a big privacy report as well. i think yes, absolutely. congress is very interested in the work that we are doing. there are many members of congress who have been long interested in privacy issues. and also how consumers are treated online. with respect all of the services that are collecting information about them. and i think they appreciate the congressional members who have been interested, they appreciate what we have been doing. >> commissioner julie brill, wireless and wireline regulations. should they be the same? >> we take the view that we need

to be technology neutral. and we need to look at things from a consumer impact perceptive. both wireless and wireline or landline providers are allowing third parties to build. the problem with planning, which everybody probably knows about. that is the problem where consumers suddenly find services on their phone bills that they may be ordered, but had a discussion about the thought that they didn't order, or never even heard about before. that is an inappropriate baling mechanism. it is called cramming. that can occur. it can occur on your landline bill and your wireless bill. i think that needs to be dealt with in a technology neutral way. whether it is happening on the landline or happening in a

wireless wave. >> this is the "communicators." our coverage of the cable show continues next week. as a reminder, if you'd like to view any of the tran-ones, you can go online to c-span.org/communicators. >> you're watching c-span 2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays, featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights, watch key public policy than spend every weekend, the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> in a few moments, a forum on the state of the european union.

in little more than an hour and a half, we will continue to focus on europe within atlantic council discussion on the future of the euro. after that, coverage of the annual convention of the national cable and television association. next, a form on forum on the future of the european union. hosted by toronto. during this debate, panelists focus on the debt crisis come in the future of the euro, and whether priests should leave the euro zone. >> ladies and gentlemen, good evening. i'm the coorganizer of this debate series. it is my privilege to once again be your moderator. i want to start by welcoming the audience that is watching this debate live on the internet, including the leading news website the global mail.com. also to the global tv and radio audience tuning in to this debate everywhere from the

business news network to cbc radio and c-span throughout the continental united states. finally, and you'll come up with 2700 people who have once again failed where thompson hall to capacity for debate. we have had some stellar debates in this very hall. christopher hitchens and tony blair, who can forget the evening on religions impact on the world. henry kissinger, year ago today, was on the stage. eighty-two years of age, participating in his first public debate. eloquently arguing against china owning the 21st century. just a matter of months ago, larry summers and paul taubman went head-to-head in the future of the north american