hearing. see no objection, mr. duncan, yet no objection to that? i now recognize myself for an opening statement. unmanned aerial systems commonly known as drone has been a game changer for men and women

serving in iraq and afghanistan. the systems have provided troops with eyes in the skies have taken the flight to the enemy. to eliminate the most dangerous al qaeda terrorist, drums have increased capabilities to secure our borders and first responders. u.s. customs and border protection began first looking at drums back in 2004, now cvp owns 10 ues aircraft. the systems have been used to surveilled drug smuggler tunnels, videos, burbridge, risk of flooding and assist with the deployment of national guard resources responding to local flooding. cdp has flown missions in support of the border patrol, texas rangers, u.s. service, fbi and others. the systems have become a force multiplier for military operations and for border security. however, we run the edge of the new horizon.

using unmanned aerial systems within the homeland currently are 200 active certificates of operation issue i the federal aviation administration to over 100 different entities such as law enforcement department and academic institutions to fly drugs domestically. this map on the monitor shows the locations of coa recipients as at april 2012. the number of recipients since that time has in fact increased. the faa plans to select 65 cities around the country for the use of nongovernment euros this year and plans to allow the deployment of nongovernment drugs nationwide i.t. here 2015. while the faa is responsible for ensuring the systems fly safely in u.s. airspace with only two and a half short years until

drums began to dominate the skies in the u.s. homeland, no federal agency is taking the lead to do with the full implications of using unmanned aerial systems and developing the relevant policies and guidelines for their use. this is despite the fact that four years ago the government accountability office recommended to the secretary of homeland security that she directed tsa administrator to examine security implications of future nonmilitary uav has operations in the national airspace system and take any actions deemed appropriate. tos recommendation was well-founded cousin 2004 tsa issued an advisory that describe possible terrorist in using uis as weapons. the advisory noted the potential for uis to carry explosives to

disperse chemicals or biological weapons for the armed forces of colombia or and has below were interested in acquiring d's uas's. while the advisory knowledge is no credible evidence to suggest the organization planned to use the systems in the united states, it did state the united states government was concerned that these aerial vehicles could be modified and used to attack key assets and critical infrastructures within the united states. these concerns were validated just last week or last year when massachusetts man agreed to plead guilty to attempting to damage and destroy federal buildings. the individual is arrested and put number of 2011 after an undercover fbi investigation revealed a plot to use multiple remote-controlled aircraft laden with explosives to collapse the dome of the united states capitol and attack the pentagon using that uav system.

as if this plot was a frightening enough, cutting-edge research out of the university of texas at austin has revealed to have more. specifically researchers from the school of engineering led by todd humphries was our first witness today through the civilian unmanned systems can be hacked into and hijacked with the relatively small investment of money and time. these findings are alarming and have revealed a keeping hole in the security of using i'm an aerial systems domestically. now is the time to ensure these vulnerabilities are mitigated to protect her aviation system at the use of unmanned aerial systems continues to grow. the department of homeland security mission is to protect the homeland. unfortunately dhs seems either disinterested or am prepared to step up to the plate to address

the proliferation of unmanned aerial systems in u.s. airspace. the potential threats they pose to our national security and the concerns of our citizens have of how drones fly over cities will be used, including protecting civil liberties of individuals under the constitution. for example, in discussion with my staff prior to this hearing, department officials repeatedly stated that the department does not see this function with the domestic use of drones as part of their mission and has no moral of the domestic unmanned aerial systems. i strongly disagree. i can imagine how they would find they have no role when there's a terror plot afforded by the fbi, attempting to hit the united states capitol and the pentagon. what more homeland security interests could there possibly be. dhs is lack of attention about this issue is truly

incomprehensible. it should not take a 9/11 style attack by terrorist organizations such as hezbollah or a lone wolf inspired event to cause dhs to develop guidance addressing the security and creations of domestic drones. they should not take a hearing to force dhs to develop policy when it comes to security of our homeland. what it should take his responsible leadership willing to recognize a potential threat and take the initiative. dhs? initiative and i am concerned that dhs is reverting back to pre-9/11 mindset, which the 9/11 commission described as a lack of imagination in identifying threats and protecting the homeland. we are disappointed that dhs declined to testify here today. this is simply another example of how dhs leadership is failing to get ahead of the curve on an issue which directly impact security of the united states.

i hope her witnesses testimony will be a call to action for the department. during today's testimony, we look forward to learning more about security issues related to the domestic use of drones and what do you just needs to do to prepare for their widespread use. with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member i guess pro tem, mr. cuellar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at thank you for the opportunity to be here with you as the ranking member for the border maritime where we deal with border security and dealing with some of the uav is the u.n. i have worked on together. it certainly gives us an opportunity. also cochair of the unmanned system caucus for informational purposes, members, we do have tomorrow a caucus meeting and we are going to have members representatives from the fbi,

dhs, cbp tomorrow night at the rayburn room 2261. this will be an opportunity for members and their staff to learn about current and future domestic use of unmanned aerial vehicles. buck mckeon and myself have spent time with other members of the caucus looking at issues. privacy issues brought up that i've seen a lot of the privacy issues severity been decided by the supreme court. we're looking at use in a type of platform. so whether it's a dirt poor in this case a lot of those privacy issues have been addressed by the supreme court. there's one to page a has anybody wants to learn about privacy issues on drones or uavs, please contact my office

or box office. but the other thing, you bring up a lot of good points we need to cover. good questions to look forward from a u2 graduates also. i do have two degrees and dr. come as a pleasure meeting you. i do have a few questions for you on that, but i think this type of dialogue will be good to talk about. one last thing as you mentioned, we did pass the reauthorization that tax about the integration of more dominion uavs in different steps we have broadband. if you haven't talked to the has to do discuss because they are steps they will be going into the future used on this. i know the ranking member, mr. keating is on its way. he does have a statement. i'm not going to read a statement. obeah appeared if you are given

the opportunity to also make that statement when he shows up. but at this time, thank you for allowing me to be with you all. >> i think the ranking member. before continuing i asked to ranking tests can't know for unmanned vehicle systems international and captain lee mack, president of the airline pilots association describing the domestic use of ues. both of them are very much in favor of this hearing. hearing no objections, so order. the chair now will go to the panel and introduce dr. todd humphreys. he and from austin i take reticular pride that you are also today. growing up in a family of longhorn, you take even more pride in not as well. so i have a little bit of orange blood myself.

dr. todd humphreys at the school of engineering at the university of texas austin specializes in the application of optimal estimation techniques to problems and satellite navigation, orbital and attitude dynamics of no processing. for anybody here who understand that other than dr. humphreys, congratulations to you. he directs the radio navigation laboratory at ut austin camara's current research focuses on defending against intentional gps spoofing and jamming. most recently, that are humphries uncovered the gps signal to navigate unmanned aerial systems can be hijacked and controlled. he conducted experiments that way since missile range but the department of homeland security and dr. humphreys and also i believe the memorial stadium and often. i believe we will see a video that describes that.

he obtained his doctorate from cornell university. the chair now recognizes that are humphreys for his opening statement. >> chairman mccaul, members of the subcommittee, you may have heard these reports made by chairman mccaul that about this time last month masterman tonight from the university of texas hijacked a civilian unmanned aerial vehicle, a small helicopter and brought it down from a remote location. that much is true and i've come today prepared to talk about what we did with the implications are for the national airspace and what can be done to address the problems that our experiment brought. so how did we hijack the small helicopter? we exploited a weakness in the global positioning system. you see, gps signals come in two flavors. military signals are encrypted to prevent counterfeiting and unauthorized use. and then there are the second

class, civilian signals. these are not encrypted. they are freely accessible him not explains they are usefulness, but it also opens up all durability. it makes them easy to counterfeit. or in other words, to his truth. just like monopoly money, they have the detailed structure, but they don't have any built-in protection against counterfeiting or spoofing. so what does this have to do with a uavs? the connection is obvious. i must tell civilian uavs depend heavily on civil gps for their navigation. that means if you can convincingly fake a gps signal, you can fool a uav into tracking your signal instead of the authentic one and at that point you can control the uav and make it move left or right, front or back, up or down. in other words, you hijack the

uav and you can do this from miles away. my friends at the university of texas have prepared a video that i would like to show you, which illustrates what we did and helps me to explain the technique involved. you see, against the background, an animated one like the one we used fine against the desert floor, this white person entering your picture is the good guy. he is a remote operator up leading to the uav a waste point. the white time as the destination supposed to move to. the gps satellite will relocate itself and as you see your recognizes where the destination it then makes its tracks lining up nicely with this goal. the bad guy moving in from the left is this proof operator and is going to transmit a fake gps

signal to the uav. at this point we will pause so i can talk about what you see on the screen. the peak on the screen exists in every gps receiver and corresponds to the authentic signal and you can go ahead and roll it now. if you can create gps signals to cause another to appear and what winds up with the authentic ones and that hijacking inside the gps receiver. as it draws off company goes uav flies at the back. the coast is where now it thinks it is. it is this perceived location. as in the in the stories this way point, the ghost uav alliance up instead of the actual uav. we did the same thing at texas memorial stadium by making our uav thinking it was rising upward at a fast clip and you'll see here and response it falls

downward. we can go ahead and pull it. at first it's the authentic signal to ground controller in control of the uav, but at this point when they go bad it is not a spoof or, the hijacker who controls the uav and it drops precipitously towards the ground. it is all in control of the remote hijacker. then, we were invited by department of homeland security are authorized by the department of homeland security and perhaps facilitated the tests we can conduct over the air, were recaptured the uav in midair. we did it for about half a mile away. i hookup rebroadcast or signal and you'll see in this case is in the former case the uav started in the hovering position but then came straight down as if i were an elevator moving down a shaft entirely under

control of the remote hack. so what are the implications for national airspace? back in february congress handed a mandate, the federal aviation at to develop a comprehensive plan for safely accelerating uavs in the national airspace and i believe the results of our demonstration should factor heavily into that plan. the district is that the faa is this culture and expertise is geared more towards safety and security and our tests implicated the security of the airspace. i think it is fair to say that dhs may have also a role to play in drawing up these new rules and regulations and i'm happy to entertain questions from the committee. >> thank you, dr. humphreys. let me state for the record they canceled the utes football is piercing that they move the football practice, which was the

biggest miracle of all in my students eyes. >> me follow up on your last comic as that's been most -- first of all, this is astounding you could hijack a uav and bring it down. i think it is an eye-opener. let me also state that military uavs are encrypted. this could not be done. the ones used on the border, but anyone domestically had this vulnerability we are concerned about. i'll ask you about this later. you mention you typed the faa and their main concern is security of the airwaves -- i'm sorry can the safety of the airwaves. they'll just need and make sure there's no other airplanes are uavs that would interfere with the flight pattern. but their focus is not security. but there's no federal agency that is providing oversight in

terms of the security aspect today. is that correct? >> as far as i know. i feel dhs is a role to play in that and the faa could possibly play a role there, too. as they say its culture and expertise is not designed for that. >> the government accountability office agreed with you and in a report they said this is the role when they directed the secretary of homeland security to the tsa to basically provide for that security, says security risk domestically and develop a national policy. so i think you have some company there in terms of agreement. i find this to be no one is minding the store and know when it's stepping up to the play. many of the gao and dhs to do

it, i tend to agree with them kind that dhs is stepping up to the plate and yet they failed to bring witnesses to testify here today on this very commit very important issue when you have a terror plot forward it in the united states s. than a year ago using one of these uavs. let me ask you this. you've identified a whirl vulnerability with these domestic uavs. tell me what would be sort of your nightmare scenario and demonstrating what you were able to do with uavs of a terrorist or some other malicious person wanted to exploit the system. >> okay i should point out currently a not terribly worried. the uav we've brought down was only 13 pounds, not very large. they could do damage in the helicopter blades swing swiftly. i'm not terribly worried at

present. my nightmare scenario is looking for were three or four years where we have adopted uavs for national air space and now the problem of scaling obsolete more heavy uavs in this particular vulnerability is addressed. we don't fix and it becomes even more indigenous to the navigation system. >> and the next two years all have thousands finer and domestically. does that give you concern given the fact there's no federal agency given aspects click >> they did make a prediction that by 2020 there could be 30,000 in our airspace. i would like someone to take ownership of the security component of uavs coming to the national airs his third >> you have done the country a great service by identifying a

vulnerability. we talk about cybersecurity connect to the internet are vulnerable, which if you're connected to a gps device are vulnerable. can you explain how that works in a limited amount of time i have left and how we can expect quick >> yeah, sure. you're right. this is just one expression of the larger problem of unauthenticated civilian gps signals. they've been so popular, so useful that over the last two decades we've absorb the technology he deeply into critical national infrastructure so even manned aircraft and some older ability toward spoofing financial exchanges and the energy distribution system are increasingly reliant on gps for timing. so in fact, this is a larger problem than the uav and it all gets traced back to the unauthenticated civilian gps signals. >> i see my time is ready to

expire. the miss a thank you for coming to washington to testify here. thank you for what i believe thank you for what i believe it's a great service to the country. as for identifying the vulnerability not only take knowledge he wise, but also from a bureaucratic standpoint. i intend for the committee to fix this problem. what that come in to cherner recognizes the ranking member, mr. cuellar. >> doctor, thank you very much and i appreciate the work you've done. just to repeat again, the specific spoofing efforts were be unsuccessful again. the encrypted military gps systems come is that correct click >> is important to remember. >> were talking about civilian uavs. >> i would note also my understanding is for the civilian commanders different purposes. law enforcement act purposes, university research purposes and

all that. so for civilian purposes or commercial purposes, most are going to be small, 11-pound mini helicopters and i just saw one in laredo used for specific instances and it's usually line up side come is that correct click >> those are the ones currently operated. >> most of the time it would be there and it's usually leavened pounds or whatever the case might be. >> that helps put things in it. >> the other thing is since spoofing focuses on gps signals, it goes beyond unmanned aircraft, which means that anything from cell phone to aircraft will depend. you can have an impact on anything dealing with gps that depends on gps for navigation. it not only unmanned.

it could be other technologies. >> as long as they depend on signal. >> right, exactly. >> i think you stated the closest thing we have is a foolproof way would be for the gps -- i think it's part of the air force to alter -- from coming down. can you explain how this would be done without an impact in the device is then explained that? >> i said that's the closest thing to foolproof. the truth is they would take a long time for that to be planned, ruled out and implemented. i am not holding my rep for a change in the signal being broadcast by the gps satellite. who would like to have it happen because would be a solution that would solve the problem for growing worldwide that uses the

gps signals. at least it was sold to some degree and how this would not affect people currently use gps, we can make it backwards compatible so if you pay attention, it's like a watermark and a $20 bill. if you look to $20 bill you can see it, but if you don't pay attention you're not other vice presidents. the same thing happens up adding authentication signatures to civilian gps. bottom line is things will affect gps signals, which means anything that depends on gps signals for navigation, right? >> you can think of the uav but one expression of the larger problem. >> right, exactly. most of the civilian purposes will be small and different types of uavs and most of them -- a lot of them are going to be mini helicopters within a specific site for that specific

purpose, law enforcement, scientific, news, whatever the case may be. >> that's right. initially anticipated will be specific when they get authorization. i don't know how it's going to 10 or 20 years when we uav highways in the sky like you may see in in the movies. but initially it's very specific purpose for his comments about small uavs, one of my recommendations in the written testimony is those exceeding 18 pounds and may be required to have a spoof resistant navigation system. they recognize we would want to encumber the smaller uavs that are less of a danger in more sensitive with that same kind of requirement. i recognize there's a balance to be struck and we can look at the 16-pound versus a 10-pound. at about 18 pounds, they become quite badly if something goes awry. >> way. in the bottom line is i really

appreciate it because like anytime ago into a new technology and talk about uavs, basically technologies of different platform. cameras are centers, but it's a different platform whether his helicopter or plane or uav, i really appreciate what you're doing them will be looking at recommendations. it's a lot of good work you and your students did. it's a great job and certainly will take that into consideration. i thank you for your good work. >> i think the ranking member. i didn't have a chance to ask your butcher recommendations for safety and security. i has to submit that for the record. that would be excellent. i know what the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank dr. humphreys were being heard.

this is educational to me. and thinking through the 2011 with the iranians claiming to hijack a military uav, the question i have for you as an encrypted signal, but do you think that the iranians for labor to use a technology is spoofing to help bring down that uav? the next important to bring whatever they say with a couple of doses of salt. but in this case, i am somewhat concerned that their claims could have some merit. they may have initiated an electronic barrage against the cia uav played their airspace. it could've initiated a sequence of events that led to his capture. the plain fact is that showed up intact and that means we've got a lot of explaining to do. >> rate. that means it didn't crash. so that type of electronic rashi mentioned that may have been

used, is that possibility within civilian airspace if someone wanted to capture law-enforcement uav, could they put up an electronic garage to bring down a law-enforcement uav? the next similar may be used. the command-and-control signal goes back to the remote pilot and of course gps signal helps navigate. mostly uavs do well if you cut one of those two umbilical cords, but they don't devote to cut out for them. in her case at the spoofing we didn't cut the cord. we supplanted with basic dishes one. so i'm broadly concerned about jamming electronic russia tags into the spoofing these more sinister under the wire attacks. >> you not only change the gps said l-2 for the uav in regard to elevation our direction, but you were able to tap into the command-and-control aspect?

>> , we did not at that. that could be done as a jamming attack. we cut the cord and prevent the remote operator from controlling the uav as he or she wishes. >> so come you were able to change the gps signal before the plane into thinking the elevation was different to bring it down. speak the remote operator with a contact he wishes for nothing appeared wrong to his sensor in the configuration we hunt. >> you could've flown that during the command-and-control ability to another runway and captured it? >> ultimately yes. it's not terribly easy to control that once you've got. you can jump on its back, or can you read it? question we asked is what could be done not to you captured other than moving it down like we did for doing broad strokes. >> if it's used for surveillance purposes and has a real-time

feed, could that be be hacked into? or replacement fee is said to for the operator? and thinking mission impossible year with a change the video feed in the operator seen something completely different. is that a possibility? >> or put a polaroid picture? >> it turns out these are areas of research in our laboratory and elsewhere. the truth is those kinds of data feeds can take advantage of the existing encryption utilities that are very difficult to crack. and so if precautions have been in place if those feeds are encrypted it's not cbc. the attacks we were successful in going after the unencrypted, unauthenticated gps that no one has bothered to protect that signal and so that was the weakest link. >> you think most in law enforcement or governmental agencies over the u.s. are using

encrypted signals or are capability or just civilian gps? >> very few civil government agencies in the united states are using encrypted military signal. all of us depend on the civilian signals. i will tell you i had two of the lieutenant in the austin police department in my office on tuesday and they were asking me for guidance on what i would do with their newly purchased uav. what i use that? would i recommend they use it during game day as they want to monitor for suspicious that they believe around the teeth of a stadium? would i recommend they use it for a s.w.a.t activities of the hostage situations? to give them my recommendations if you have risk on the ground already, i would get those eyes in the sky. but if there isn't an ongoing briski at dignity on the ground, i'd probably keep it down. >> you think criminal elements could utilize this for law-enforcement surveillance?

>> i think they could use a type elegy -- the spoofing technology? >> gps technology students have come up with. >> i want to make a point this was nec. it has taken us years to perfect see us. the trouble is civilian malefactors or others can get a hold of what are called gps signal simulators and they can do almost everything we did and these are readily available, even purchasable. so i am worried that it could be a weapon in the arsenal of organized crime or state actors of organized terrorists. >> thank you. my time is. >> the chair now recognizes the actual ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. keating. thank you, mr. chairman. the thought of having to texas representatives here prompted me to get here with great alacrity. i want to thank mr. cuellar for

his fine performance. i appreciate that. and thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent misstatement go on the record that we can move expeditiously to questions. i have just a question for dr. humphreys. when you are comparing the civilian -- if you use that term in the different codes of encryption, what is the cost differential? you know, if law-enforcement ones in print and more common is cost prohibited or would that be a better track to take to differentiate it so there is more encryption is spoofing? >> perhaps if there's recommendations the uav usi has recommended, they would like to use saddam receivers, gps receivers for military uses into the civilian uavs that they can be protected from hacking

attacks. the trouble i see what that is twofold. one coming as the price goes up because there's only a couple companies that can build these receivers and so the price would much more than doubled. and that is going to hurt this nation industry, which is sensitive to price, especially for smaller devices. and second, i do feel of the logistics working out. these are hot items. you would not want than proliferating among civilians and end up in the wrong hands. and you wouldn't necessarily want to distribute the keys on a short-term basis because that is cumbersome for the owners. .. person that is told to turn of off your cell phone during the critical periods of landing and

takeoff. how could it be used to disrupt the orderly and safe takeoffs and landings of airplanes? commercial airplanes? >> the faa is rolling out what is called the next jen system the air traffic controller system that depends more heavily 0 gps than the current system. they are usualing commercial air craft and civilian gps signals. these planes are large and have good initial sensor ed a question for understanding how they deal with a spoofing attack. >> thank you. mr. chairman, iack yield back y time. thank t the ranking member. yk

we recognize. the general aide from new york mrs. clark.i >> thank th i thank our rankingi member for filling this. if i find 9 topic fascinating.he i serve as ranking committee on the and infrastructure on infrae protection. th protectionte oactly as -- frequently as we advance our technology logical know how whether it pays in outset to bake into our technology ways in which we can counter act disruption or if need be, disarm and disable the vices that are

developed. and it would seem to me, no knowing what we know that the next generation would be sensitive enough that if any spoofing activity were to take place, something could be banked into the twos that would protect us. what do you say about that? >> i agree with that. i would recommendly whole heartly efforts to bake into antispoofing techniques. problem would be -- without taking the issue seriously enough. we have a great number in our air space which continue to be just as the one we took down. there are techniques, simple tech vehicles that while not foul proof, they can increase the resistance to a spoofing attack significantly. i recommend in my written testimony a long list of these

techniques. some simple some not. antispoofing is hard. there's no question and easy and cheap slowings. there are reasonable cost effective measures we take in the short term to bake it in, as you say. >> you also stated in your view of the problem, should be solved as the sourced at the gps satellite themselves. do you believe that this is likely to occur? >> so i did say that on an interview. i guess i despair at the kinds of institutional changes that would be required looking for funding or political will to bring that about in the very best scenario, it might take five years before we see any protection. i'm becoming more pessimistic we can solve this problem at the gps saturday light i suppose had

there are more grassroots approach with the uav within the navigation system is more reasonable and practical. >> you recommended that dhs submit to funding development and implementation of a authentication signature in the forthcoming signals. how did the hs respond to the recommendation and do you think the agency will make will the suggested changes? >> so this is a long-term recommendation. as i said, i'm not saying it's going happen tomorrow or within five years. long-term. i would like the dhs to commit to funding this. the department of defense has indicated some willingness to implement a change to the civil gps signal so they can be awe authenticated like putting a water mark on the $20 bill they don't have the funds. i believe it would fall to the

dhs to fund something like this. >> in just listening to what you have had to say look at the rate of which the uavs are being produced. if you're estimated it make take about five years to get there, we could be talking about, you know, tens of thousand of uavs at that point in time, having been deployed at some level whether it's military, whether it's local law enforcement. so, you know, i want to thank you first of all for the work that you've done, the research and the capabilities that you have uncovered. but my concern is you know what you suggest we do right now. >> the suggestion i have right now are these grassroots approaches for fixing the uav without having permission of the department of the gps director at the air force.

there are reasonable techniques you bake in the gps sever receivers and the entire navigation system while they don't prevent sophisticated attacks, they would sure make them harder. >> thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank you yes lady. you raise a point. -- i hope we can fix these. i ask you put the intreemtion the record. chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i must confess, i am fascinated by this. i was sitting here thinking that we may have all of these things in the environment singing all around every place when you watch when you used to be science fiction. i'm not sure this is much fiction now as it use to be. but was trying to figure out

the utilizationization and utility, what's the usefulness of the continuous development of the technology? >> it's a great question. there are in fact, a lot of great uses to which these drones can be put. i want to use them in the research so we can do better detection of interference sources in the gps radio ban. i'll confess also. i'm looking forward to a day when i get a taco delivered to my doorstep from a done that days takeout deliver i are. other types can be in monitor border helping to surveil difficult situations like a swat attack against somebody who is got as hostile situation ongoing. i see these as being very

useful. i would not want to put the brakes on the plan faa has to roll them out in the future. i would simply want to hold the faa to the language of the act passed back in february so we is safely accelerate the adoption of these uav into the national air space. >> i guess since we have a great concern about terrorism, terrorist, terrorist plots, that it would give us the opportunity to stay a step ahead of individuals our countries, even, that might have other kinds of motivation for further development. >> that's true. if you put the brakes on the industry now, you end up putting at a disadvantage compared to other countries. the uav revolution is coming, and we might as well be on the cutting edge of it.

how do we balance -- i'm thinking of all of the concerns that we have right now about money and expenditures, and, you know, when we cut $25 billion out this, we deny people food stamps or, you know, i think people having so much difficulty simply having shelt are or a place to live, how do we balance the utilizationization of our resources resources in terms what it would take to further develop the technology we're talking about versus how do you feed the hungry or? >> well, it's a good question. i guess i would point out in many cases the uav would save money. austin police department the

lieutenants talking to me they were telling it cost $5 million to buy a helicopter for man use and only maybe $50,000 on uav. they're on a tight budget. i understand where they are locking at them to save money. it would frees up budgets for other worthy uses for the funds. it's going to be a dynamo for innovation and jobs a healthy domestic uav industry. my main contention is let's let it go ahead but let's be vigilant to the uses they are put and ensure the peoples' privacy and security is a top priority. >> well, let me thank you very much. i certainly support technology enforcement. i want to as balanced as we can. i commend you for your work. thank you very much. >> thank the gentleman.

the chair now indulges the gentleman in texas for one question. >> one question. doctor, just real quickly. i appreciate the good work you have done. there are first of all the military type of drones uav and there is the hobby uav and the commercial uav would you say that? >> i think those are good broad classification yes. >> what you use is . >> personally it was an $80,000. >> was it a hobby? >> no. >> it wasn't? >> okay a hobbyist could use it, of course. it was a quite expensive for the average weekend hobbyiest. >> right. my u understanding is that most of the hobby uav do not have protection over radio signals and they can be easily taken over whether it's oiled ,000 or $5,000. my understanding is most commercial uav have encription

the frequent frequency on hacking or spoofing would be difficult. >> the communication from the remote pilot might well be secure. it but the spoofing of the gps signals is not secure. and that's what we demonstrated. we were use the high end sophisticated uav. we were not using the do it yourself drone. >> my understanding is most of the commercial uav have the encription on it. and having it is very important because just like a member of the fbi person they were selling the encription keys and there was sort of things involved on that. wanted to -- appreciate the work. i wanted to make sure . >> they may have encription on the command and control link. they don't have encription on the gps navigation lang. >> those are the recommendation. >> i recommend we ensure uav

exceeding 18 pounds have certified themselves as spoof resistance. i give a brief definition many any statement. i'm willing to entertain that definition in further research. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman. let me reintegrate. that is we worked together very closely on getting these uav military dhs con on the border southwest border where they are needed and very valuable in securing the border. what we're talking about here today is the domestic use of uav which are not encrypted and vulnerable. there's no policy set forth in terms how we do deal with them the next couple of years are going to multiply the flownd. thousand. it's incumbent upon the department of homeland security in particular of the trotion plot to engage on the issue and come provide that security and

policy. with that. i want to thank our witness dr. hum humphreys. it's been a pleasure to hear your intelligent testimony, but on a personal level to meet you as well. thank you for being will be a gust on washington journal. the texas congressman will discuss the campaign, his plans for the republican convention and the bills to audit the federal reserve which is being debated in the house today. that's live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. today a look at operations at nuclear regulatory commission by two house subcommittees. will testify. we'll bring you live coverage starting at 10 a.m. eastern on

our companion networking c-span 3. >> this was a kind of job, if you can't disagree or degree venn mentally without taking it personally and without, you know, hating the person who is on the other side, you want to find another job. supreme court associate justice reflects on over 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents in his late "reading law." sunday at 8:00 on c-span q and a. >> now more from the subcommittee. an official what the government accountability office criticizes homeland security department for not regulating the increase use of drones in the country. it is an panel. >> recognize the second panel.ta before i do that i want to askne unanimous consent the welcome a colleague and federal texan toad

introduce the hometown sheriff. >> thank you. you you for the committee for allowing me the special privilege today. i'm pleased to be able to introduce the committee today not only constituent but a friend and incredible law enforcement officer who has hands on experience in the subject. chief deputy william mcdaniels sheriff office. texas sheriff office has jurisdiction over the largest sub burden. it is one of the fastest growing counties in america. the only agency in texas that is currently used unmanned aerial views. in my view, it has tremendous potential for public safety for emergency respse, for search and rescue, and at times during natural disasters such as the wild fires we experienced locally last year. chief mcdambisa daniel is

decorated law enforcement office with an impressive career spanning many decades. he received a public safety law enforcement chief award for excellence, two awards in that arena, while serving the united states air force, he received a air force accommodation medal, at 15th air force combat crew excellence award. he's graduate of fbi national academy in quantity quo, virginia. i know, the chief's testimony will be insightful in helpful in an emerging issue. so thank you for allowing me to introduce the good friend today. chief mcdaniel, thank you for being here. >> thank you mr. brady for the kind introduction. and with that. i'm going introduce the rest of the panel. director of civil aviation issues for the u.s. accountability office.

he's a member of the -- and policy analysis studies, related to civilian aviation issues including safety environment, air traffic control, airport development and international aviation. prioring to come it in 1918 served on the faculty of university of california in university of illinois. i note that from mr. davis my colleague. in addition he served on the nation commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states on are the 9/11 commission. on the aviation in transportation security team from 2003 to 2004. and let me see here in my notes. i apologize. our last witness. last but not least. mrs. amy is the legal counsel of

the electronic previous information center. her work includes issues of national security government surveillance, digital. she is the moderator of the weekly twitter based privacy discussion and assists with epics internet and social media web presence. prior to joining that, i don't -- she graduated from new york law school where she pursuits studies on media law, technology and the first amendment. we appreciate you being here today to bring up the important privacy issuings we see domestic use of the uav. so with that, now the chairman recognizes mr. dillingham for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee. my statement today discusses three areas. first, an overview of the findings and recommendation from

our 2008 study that focus on some of the key challenges to safe integration of unmanned aerial system in the national air space. second, dhs's role in the domestic use of the system, and third, our observation on emerging issues. in 2008, the four key challenges we identify to integration were the ability of uas to sense and avoid other aircraft, ensuring unsphwrupted command and control, the development of standards to ensure the uav be establish safety, reliability and performance requirements, and finally, to ensure that the regulations being developed for unmanned aircraft be equal to existing regulations for manned aircraft. to address these challenges, they developed a matter of congressional and three recommendation two for faa and one for dhs. we recommended faa issue a comprehensive uav program plan

and establishes processes to obtain available operational data. we have closed those recommendation as being implemented. we suggested that congress create an organization within faa to coordinate government and private sector efforts to address the safety challenges. and we also recommend that the tsa exam the potential security related to uas and take appropriate action. behave closed matter for congressional consideration and the recommendation to tsa. it's not being implemented. regard dhs role with them in the national air space, dhs is one of several partner agencies of faa joint planning and development office, that is working to integrate uaf. faa has granted custom and border protection to operate the ten uaf to support the national security issue along the u.s.

northern and southern borders. it's providing support other other federal and state agencies in carrying out their missions. as a chairman described in the opening statement, tsa acting in the role lead agency for transportation security, in 2004, issues an as provide i are which indicated that the federal government was concerned that uaf could be mod fighted and used to attack key assets and infrastructure in the united states. neither dhs nor tsa has taken any significant action to implement the 2008 recommendation to exam the potential security implication of uaf. according to the tsa official in 2008, an again as recently as this month, they believe that the agency current practices are sufficient no additional actions are needed. with regard to emerging issues, our ongoing work is identified three key issues that warrant further consideration.

first, is private sei, as it relates to collection and use of surveillance data. members of congress, civil liberty organization and civilians have expressed concern at the potential increase use in the national air space by law enforcement or commercial purposes has potential private sei implications. currently, no federal agency has specific statute story responsibility to regulate privacy matters relating to uaf. stakeholders told us by developing guidelines that are appropriate for the appropriate use of uaf of could in fact preclude abuses of the technology and negative public perception of the potential uses that are planned for these aircraft. a second emerging issue is owners of model aircrafts do not require permission or license from faa to operate their aircraft. as chairman described in the opening statement, a man in massachusetts pleaded guilty for plotting to use a large remote

control model aircraft filled with c4 plastic explosive to attack the pentagon and the u.s. capitol. this kind of incident highlights the potential for model aircraft to be used to cause harm. a third emerging issue is a potential for jamming of gps signal that control uat. in a jamming scenario, the aircraft would probablily lose the ability to determine whether it is locate and in which direction it is traveled. low cost things are ready available on the internet. mr. chairman, rehabbing has been, and member of the subcommittee. we plan to issue a full report to the subcommittee and other committees on the congress on the uaf work later in the fall. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for the good work. chair recognizes another fellow texan. chief mcdaniel. >> thank you, sir. the sheriff office is the seventh largest in the state of

texas and is responsible for law enforcement services for a county that covers over 1,000 square miles. it has a population of over 471,000. as indicated, it is an extremely fast growing county. the county is diverse, in geography as well as population, with the extremely urban area with a very dense population on our southern border with houston and harris county. to an extremely rural area in the northern portion of our county. the sheriff office is committed to protecting the lives and property of the people we serve, and since my sheriff took office in 2005, we have sought out new and better technology to enhance both our efficiency as well as our effectiveness in carrying out our public safety mission. i believe the uav systems now available to public safety agencies are exactly the type of

technology that will makes more successful. it is not just a law enforcement tool, but a public safety asset that can now be used by fire departments, emergency management offices and other government tal universities as well. the sheriff office has owned a shadow hog uav since december 2011. we have not used it for an operational mission to day, we see the benefit and the mission profile for swat operations, high-risk warrants with locating lost persons, manhunts, hazard material spills, fire scene, traffic accident investigations, or traffic management and observation due hurricane evacuations. we did not obtain this for the purpose of surveillance. i do not believe small uav such our shadow hawk are particularly

designed or suited for that type of mission. the faa has expertise in the aeronautical field, they don't have the necessary public safety mission experience to effectively oversee this type of operational environment. if federal oversight is necessary, it would seem appropriate to establish it under the department of home land security. different from the air gnat call component, the faa would continue to manage dhs would manage the operational aspect by setting an enforcing operational guidelines and procedures, belier a data base relating to the uav, agencies using them mission results and act as resource in information tool for current and interested public safety agencies. current case law supports the use of air assets by law enforcement, and i do not

believe it is necessary to introduce new legislation that would so veer -- severely restrict the uav effectivenesses. i courage you to recognize as an important tool for public safety agency. i believe in this technology and the mission of protecting the citizens of my county, my state, and this nation. >> thank you, chief. we recognize. >> mr. chairman, and members of subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is amy i'm associate at electronic privacy sei information center a nonpartisan research organization in dc focused on a public attention on emerging issues and privacy and civil liberties. we thank you for holding the hearing today. drones greatly increase the

capacity for domestic surveillance. they are specifically designed to carry highly invasive technology. they are cheaper too buy and maintain. they can operate undetected in urban and rural informations. sensitive information is particularly vulnerable to unlawful access. as briefsly discussed they are not secure. observed in comments faa on drone test site location. it pose a threat. hackers are not only able to gain control they are able to intercept the data feeds transmitted by a drone. we recognize that drone technology has very positive uses in the united states. it can be used to monitor for environment use. help prevent the spread of we'res. however, there are substantial legal and constitutional issues involved in the deployment of aerial drones by federal agencies.

as drone technology becomes cheaper it will become more wide spread and the threat to privacy will be more substantial. ethic supports compliance with currents federal law for the deployment of drone technology and limitation for federal agency and other organizations who obtain. the current state of the law is insufficient to address the threat. legislation is needed to protect against the use of drones surveillance tools and to provide for redress against drone operators who fail to comply with the protection. congress directed the faa to develop regulation encourage wide spread of drone in the u.s. the fourth coming regulations -- public and private drone operators including dhs and the custom and border bureau. earlier this year in a formal petition to the faa they urged the agency to conduct a rulemaking to implement the rulemaking for privacy drones. it was joined by more than 100 organizations, experts and

member of the public who believed the privacy rules were necessary before they entered the skies in a more wide spread way. they have not spending to the ask q for agency action. they mean there is no administrative framework in place 0 to regulate drones in the skies. as currently been mentioned they operate ten drones in the united states. the dhs inspector general recently assessed.

several of the colleagues have made efforts to address some of the privacy threats to drone. we believe those efforts are not suffer. there are simple steps that we believe can protect privacy as use of drones increase in the sky. first congress should pass targetedded legislation initial step would be the passage of the bill to limit drone surveillance in the united states in cases where a warrant has been not obtained. however a fully address the invasive nature of drones new legislation must prohibit nonspecific untargetted drone surveillance, limit the use of drone surveillance data collected, transmitted, stored or shared and require knows notice of the politician. the law should provide for independent. second should expressly require drone operators including dh sb and the implement regulation subject to public notice and comments that address the privacy implication. and finally, i think congress

should clarify the circumstance in which they purchased by them in the pursuit of the mission may be deployed for other purposes. the failure to make clear the circumstance on federal and state agencies may deploy dproans for aerial surveillance has raised significant concerns about the program. once again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'll be pleased to answer your question. >> thank you. we start first with you mr. dillingham. you mentioned tsa identified the potential terrorist threat through the use of these uav systems, you know, the in colombia and talk about hezbollah, and then of course the concerns came to in last september when it was reported by the associated press to blow up pentagon and u.s. capital is arrested and it was a drone he was going use to do that. >> yes, sir. >> the united states capital and

the pentagon, the very targets of 9/11, and yet the department, as you recommended through the gao, the department has a role in this. to provide a security assessment in a national policy. the department apparently disagrees with you. and disagrees with me as a chairman. and refused to provide testimony before the committee here today. i find it in re henceble. i think they should become before the committee. we had a direct threat to the capital of the united states and the pentagon, if they don't see it as role of the department of homeland security to come up with a policy and a security assessment to monitor the threat that these domestic drones can pose to the american people. do you have any idea with their rational is? >> mr. chairman, we

specifically followed up in preparation for the hearing, but before that they had the policy once we issue a recommendation we do periodic followups because of the agencies are not only responsible for reporting to the gao they report to the congress. we followed up repeatedly and asked the tsa again about the position had their positioned change? they indicatorred the position had no changed. they added -- their added comments were they were doing -- they were taking actions that they thought were sufficient to address the issue. and as you know, one of the central tenets of tsa security are risk analysis, or risk assessment so they know where they would best deploy their resources. we asked for some evidence of risk assessment that was done with regard to uav or uaf we

were not able to obtain that from dhs. so that we still think that our recommendation is valid and needed to be addressed. for balance, though, let me say that dhs is participating with the joint planning and develop office as part of the cross government-wide development for plans. in terms of what the nature and scope is position beyond being members of the particular group. we were not able to ascertain at this point. we continue to work that issue for our full report. >> i can't ascertain it either. if they won't come before the committee to describe what they're doing, how can we no? they are taking certain precautions, yet they will not come before the committee to tell us what brie cautions they're taking. >> yes, sir. and they have defied not only you but the committee and the

america people. i'm not pleased, obviously. let me go to chief mcdaniel. you receive homeland security grants to purchase these drones. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> they have no role. >>s no sir. i hope you're saying that. you believe there needs to be federal oversight by the department of homeland security. >> yes, sir, there is a difference between the aviation aspect of that certainly the faa is entitled to as experts in that environment, but they do not have the understanding the expertise that i believe an agency such as the dhs would have in understanding the operational roles and missions that in our case, law enforcement would have in the need we would have. >> i tend to agree with you. i think faa provides the safety or the routes but not security. tell me just very briefly the

legitimate law enforcement purposes. i believe there is legitimate law enforcement purpose for the use of these domestically can you expand on that? >> well, we have periodic needs for our s.w.a.t. team to be called out and respond to critical incidents involving barricade suspected, high-risk warrants, and this is an asset that provides that incident commander with a situational of awareness to see everything that is going on within that incident so that he can better manage that incident and bring it to a safe conclusion. >> i agree. i think it should be limited to specific instance or within a legitimate law enforcement purpose. i think what most american people do not want to see are thousand of these drones being ice of the sky, sort of spying on the american people. i think it takes me to you. when it comes to the priseres sei issues, i think which are a

legitimate concern. i think people can accept if this is being used for manhunt as we use law enforcement helicopters are used in the sky for various legitimate law enforcement purpose balance we they don't want to see is sort of spying with emission involvedded in the plan. there is no policy. the department of homeland security has an office of privacy. don't you believe they should be involved in working with people like yourself and people like the sheriff and the gao to develop a privacy policy? >> i think they believe that. i think a great first step they have the most robust privacy office. they didn't done a privacy impact seas assessment on the own drone program which is one of the most robust and the most public sized. they have not gone in to determine what impact the drones

will have on the american public as they use them. we think it would be a great first step. after that has been completed to go in and monitor these and determine what they can be used for and what they cannot be used for. >> let me conclude by saying that you may not agree on all of the issues, one thing you agree on, is that dhs has a role to play whether it's providing a security analysis working working with state and locals and with privacy. and i hope this hearing gets their attention, i hope your testimony gets their attention, the step forward step up to the plate and do something about this. with that, i recognize ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chief mcdaniel. i'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination you would do this. a question for you, if there was a law enforcement person chief or other official who wanted to replace the rubber bull lits with real bullets.

do you know of my any state rule stopping anyone from doing that? >> i'm not aware within the state of texas that would prevent that, no sir. >> i would suggest that's probably it'll typically for all states. do you think we should be looking at it both federal and state ?refl. >>? certainly i can understand it as being a concern. the twawlty of that ever occurring is slim and none in my view based upon the platform, the accuracy required, all of those things that go into it lethal or less than lethal situation, i don't believe the uav are appropriate for that type of weapon platform. >> thank you. the question for -- i apologize. i can envision probably in the more extreme example the press or someone else, you know, how

they invade someone's privacy right now, abusing these vehicles, and is there any way even besides criminal law and other lawsuit, is there a way we can trace is someone is photographing or doing some video cam work on people in the private lives out in the backyard or in front of the pool or whatever. is there a way we can trace that so there can be civil action. perhaps do you think there is available civil action in that respect that could be brought forward? >> on the state there could be. so you to look to the peeping tom laws. some are specific. and they require the motivation to catch person in the state of undress. other than that, there is no legislation that would address those circumstances. and right now, can the opaque process for licensing the drones to be used and the fact that hobby yis can gain control of a drone and use it no matter

without getting a license at all, there is additional barriers to it. especially the press using these. >> in addition to homeland security the faa should be involved in set these kinds of regulations? >> i believe the faa has a role, i don't believe that they are set out to go the full distance the department of homeland security can go. they are licensing authority. within the authority they have the ability to request description of what a drone is going to be licensed for what they will be used for and hold the licensee at task to that purpose. we don't believe that is taking place right now. we think it would be an appropriate function of the faa. >> okay. conclude by commenting that i agree with the chair as well. is there some need of some kind of oversight because the privacy rights are in danger. there's potential for terrorist activities that are involved. and misuse that way there should be some kind of, you know, control other than good common sense of law enforcement as to how it is used as well.

so we're hopeful that we can follow up the hearing with that kind of input from homeland security and perhaps faa. thank you. >> ranking member for the congresses, thank you. we recognize mr. duncan from south carolina. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i want to follow up. i think we need a hearing with faa to bring them questions about what they're doing to implement permitting and certificates in the country with the flying of unmanned air ideal systems because we have a lo rough bust civilian aviation population in this country. and if you have visual flight rules and you have a civilian avenueuateer that goes up on the 172 he's not on following a flight plane. he currently probably not looking to see if there's a certificate are whether the sheriff is flying a drone in the area. they're not looking for other aircraft in the air space. they're looking down at whatever

their surveilling. thing is a real threat to civilian aviation with unmanned aerial systems. especially if we see dramatic increase projected based on the information provided. we need talk to faa with regard to civilian aviation and flight rules. the gist of my concern about drones and unmanned aerial systems is the privacy issue. it's a real issue, real concern to the constituents that i represent, real concerns to american across the land great land on what the government is surveilling. we had recently an episode in nebraska farmers were upset that the epa was flying aircraft and possibly uav to check their fencing. and whether their callets cattle were getting in streams are they going to use that for that going forward? i'm a cosponsor of austin

scott's bill which is an important piece of legislation. when i think about privacy issues i think about what we have done on the war on terror and surveillance of people we suspect are involved in terrorism. in order to listen in their phone conversation cell phone or landline, it defies the courts involved. are they going to be involved unmanned aerial systems surveying american citizens on the country in whether their activities are whether it's terrorist or narcotic activities. where is the right of privacy? and where does a court such as this get involved in this? i think these are legitimate questions we need to ask. we have a office of privacy within the homeland security the chairman mentioned earlier, that office of privacy is there for a reason. it's to make sure that department homeland security is involved in making sure that the privacy rights of the united states citizens aren't violated as we try to protect the great country. is that office of privacy

involved with the department of home land security with regard to unmanned aerial system? it's a vailed question for us to ask. i want to thank amie for being here. what methods do you feel are best to cooperate with the growth in uafst? >> we thing the best principal to look at transparency and accountability. we are looking at again, proceeds at faa to make sure that drone operators aren't allowed to utilize their drones for purposes outside of what they have initially been licensed for. we want to see dhs implement regulations protecting privacy and ensuring they cannot been used for jenizes surveillance. we think that is not in line with constitutional principals and should not be used. we would like to see as we proposed in longer statement, legislation that is geared towarding protecting these rights. we think it's important do this now as previous witnesses have stated.

violations have no occurred yet. if we wait for the drones to go in the air, before we ask i think we're going regret it. >> thank you for protecting civil liberties in the country and what you're doing. i come from south carolina we're on the coast. there's a threat of hurricanes. i can see and understand certificate issues for weather epa or homeland security or some organization to fly the coastline prior to a hurricane coming in to assess changes in the environment take real time actual aerial photographs that can be used. i can understand a certificate being issued for custom and border patrol if they know terrorist an area of the border being exploited one sometime certificate. i can understand the need for some sort of privacy committee to issue those certificates. i can understand a one-time certificate or temporary certificate being issued to a sheriff if you had a prison

break or a lot of drug activity. these are isolated incidents. they aren't carte blanche of flying unmanned air row systems across the system. i want to ask mr. dilling hamming why has the department of homeland be so slow to develop the use of drones? >> that's a good question sir. we have not, able to get an answer from dhs or tsa why they have not followed our recommendation. we have been told by many state holders that it's better to act on these potential issues before we have a crisis or before some of these things occur. oftentimes, not only does it take regulation two or three years to be enacted, but often times when regulations are acted enacted in a crisis situation, sometimes they aren't the best work that the agencies do.

so we have been -- we continue to follow up with dhs and point out we think that have a role in the uav situation as well as both in terms of privacy as well as security. >> all right. i don't want to wait for a crisis situation. i know, the chairman as well as i think i know him. i think we'll have department of homeland security sitting where you are to ask questions. i yield back. >> thank you. let my say not been slow, they have completely disregarded mr. dillingham and the gao and defied the committee by indicating that no role whatsoever in the domestic use of uav. i recognize mr. clark. >> thank thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me add to my voice of that of my colleagues about concern

with respect to dhs and their response to this committee. clearly this is an emerging threat. and it is certainly within the jurisdiction of dhs to respond this committee about subcommittee and the request to know where they stand with regard to this, and it's not acceptable to not participate to not share with us their thinking. when you think about the implications of these devices, dr. dillingham, you note in your testimony that currently no federal agency has specific statutory responsibility to regulate privacy matters related to uaf. do you agree with that the responsible agency should be dhs and in your opinion, which

agency is best positioned to take this on, and why? >> i think i'll answer at this point, we're probably not in a position to say who should be responsible, but we think the process that is joshedway now firms of the potential agency incoming justice homeland security, faa, should be working together as to figure out who in fact is going to take the lead in the particular areas. because it's no one's mission at this point because uaf didn't exist in the domestic area before not too long ago. we think it is something for collaboration and cooperation but definitelying definitely something that needs to be attended to now rather than later. >> do you agree with that? >> we do agree. we grow as other agencies

implement drones in the united states, we think that those agencies should also take on a role in regulating and protecting privacy of the people who may be coming under cor vai lens because of the operation. >> madam, the organization representing uav manufacturers and operator recently release and industry code of conduct. it included some privacy safe guards. more over compliance with the guidelines of both voluntary and un enforceable. although the attempt to address the concerns can you explain official action with enforcement is necessary? >> i'm holding the voluntary code of conduct right hire. it's one page front and back. all they say on privacy is we will respect the privacy of individuals. as you mention both voluntary and nonenforceable. we believe without official action if everything is left down to one line privacy will be

not sufficiently protected. >> is there a particular down study for the manufacturer in not providing a more robust code of conduct? >> many privacy experts including rhode island yab former professor of stanford has said that people in the united states will be very he substantiate to accept the adoption of this technology if they are not put into place. prior to the adoption of it. so we believe that if we don't address this now, there will actually be a viz really a reaction from the american public and that we will not be able to comply with the spirit of the faa act which requires that drones be allowed into this united states national air space. >> from a commercial use standpoint or a local law enforcement standpoint, is it within the best interest of manufacturers to strengthen

their code of conduct? >> we believe it's not only in the best interest for them to strengthen the code of conduct, it is also in the best interest to support large scale legislation and regulation related to privacy. >> thank you very, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady. we recognize the chairman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman i guess for my in you to answer, can you define a drone for me? is there a certain size or altitude that it nighs out? what substitutes what we're trying to deal with? >> i guess i'll try and start. it varies, sir. it varies from hand held model airplane types to ones we're most familiar with in terms of predatory and the global hawks that are used mostly in the war theater. what we're talking about here

for the most part, are what's called a small uav which is what faa is trying develop a rule for. and that is, i think, less than 55 pounds, and relatively small in size. >> okay. to fly and -- are you familiar with that? >> i've heard that phrase before. it could be the size of flying trash can. or it could be the size of a humming bird. >> i thought you said 55 pounds. >> right. i'm saying it varies in size. the small uav rule that's being worked refers to that size the 55 and down. >> 55 and down, sir. >> okay. i know that the flying trash cans originally when they were developed, i think part of their thought process was to use them for police work, if you're in a neighborhood you're chasing a

suspect through several buildings or whatever they can fly that over at fairly low altitude, but just had a question on that. and to answer mr. deng can, the question a part of it maybe not answer. i think the transportation infrastructure committee has tried to tackle the problem of getting in general air space and aviation and faa air space. ic that is a separate maybe issue that's hopefully we're trying to handled on that angle. anything that can be seen by anyone driving down the street flying a helicopter, i guess i would say. you're f you're driving down the street and a guy is sitting on his lawn smoking marijuana. you have a right to arrest him.

>> right. >> if he's in the backyard and has a privacy fence you're not allowed to put a ladder up or not? because it's not available to people? >> the norm is to be able to view it from what the public can see. >> okay. that's kind of where i was -- my hill billy way of getting there, i guess. 30,000 feet or whatever these -- we always think about of the predatory drones that are armed and have been successful in a lot of military operation. my constituents and i think a lot are concerned that type of surveillance will be at the not armed you can't see them or hear them. but is that a whole different level than what we were talking about a second ago being able to see what you can normally see? >> certainly.

the utilization of the uav over an area would open it up to view from law enforcement or any other governmental entity. >> these small ones we're talking about today the 55 pounds and belows with the flying trash can. i have seen them. i think they would be fairly apparent to people, i'm not saying operate. i've seen it on the shelf. where they develop them. as far as the sound they put out, things like that, are those that most of those are they going people going to be acknowledge there is something flying over their farm or house or looking to see if you're shooting up. >> that's an excellent point. the uav that public safety agencies law enforcement ftd are using are looking do to scare -- utilize are not the global hawk or the predatory in $30 million

a copy. they are small in stat chiewr. the maximum time allot of on our shadow hawk is two hours and twenty minutes. >> at what altitude? >> no more than 400 feet aboveground level. >> people are going to be able to privacy will be alleviated aassume with that type of. >> absolutely. a that altitude and the type of engine it has, it sounds like a very powerful weed eater, and you'll be able to notice that it's above. >> maybe you could make a weed eater out of one. it would be handy. mr. chairman,, the department of homeland security will not testify before the subcommittee and the department of homeland security. is that correct? i rest my case. thanks for the point. i'll close on it as well.

chair recognizes for the third time during the hearing from texas. >> it's refreshing to hear my good republican to talk about civil liberties. thank you. appreciate that. but what one more thing out epa story by foxx. they took it back. it was not uav. it was aircraft they have been flying for the ten years both under democrat and republican. ..

>> of the u.s. constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, it requires search warrants to be based on probable cause, and the supreme court has already interpreted different cases. for example, talking about aircraft.he s and keep in mind that the supreme court has already talked about using aircraft ond cameras -- cameras on aircraft. this time it happens to be uavs. for example, just to make sure we understand the supreme courta has said there's an expectationr of privacy when it's inside the house, it's a different type of privacy. once you go outside the house, there is a different type of privacy. privacy. the business has less

expectations and inside the supreme court or the springford has talked about the doctrine and you are familiar with the dow chemical company versus the united states. also familiar with the doctrine of california versus serrano case. the supreme court said that the police did not have to obtain a search warrant on a [inaudible] is that correct? also -- the court also defines aerial searches in florida and chief tommy mentioned the 400 feet. they did not need a search warrant when buying a helicopter above 400 feet.

in this case, a different type of platform. if you are flying about 400 feet, no search warrant. but if you are flying below 400 feet, and i believe most of the law enforcement and those uavs will be a 400 below. therefore, if it is -- if you are flying at 400 feet in altitude, at that time you would need a search warrant whether using helicopter or a uav, probably not an airplane, but a unit. the supreme court has already laid out the law and what it is. i do agree with my colleagues here that we probably need to look at some legislation. but as we draft the legislation. we have to keep in mind that the supreme court has already defined open doctrine expectations. is that correct? >> yes, sir, that is absolutely

correct. as far as case law goes, there is no difference between establishing a separate type of case law for uavs. the manned aircraft component is nothing more, compared to a uav that has them on the ground. they are the aircraft assets. >> the dow chemical company versus united states, airborne use of thermal imaging. here is another case where technology is being used. i'm fascinated by it, but i do understand there are concerns and that the doctor had just testified -- i looked at his recommendations. they are good recommendations. i think we need to look at those recommendations. all i am saying is that members

-- there already is case law on a straight the supreme court has ruled on us. if we do any legislation, i would say let's look at the legislation of the supreme court. let's use common sense and applying some of this. and put trust in our law enforcement, which i appreciate and having three brothers and one is a quarter share. i appreciate the work they do. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i thank you, gentlemen. i would like to thank the witnesses for being here. as a former federal prosecutor, i understand -- is there some i missed? >> yes. >> oh, my goodness. mr. davis. i sincerely apologize red. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> you really have a lot to ask him about when he asked it.

you talk about using instruments -- that that could become a problem. you mentioned that. can you mentioned a little bit more? >> yes, sir. one of the emerging issues that we have identified is the potential that the controls of these uavs in flight, again, we are talking about the small ones as opposed to the encrypted vod type. they could, in fact, be jammed in great command and control. linked with uav. meaning that the uav could go off course. not necessarily or could include being taken control over, but clearly breaking that commanding controlling the appropriate

persons or organizations that we are controlling. it is something that needs to be addressed now before we have these potentially serious kinds of incidents. >> thank you very much. let me ask you and chief mcdaniel. the davis act is collective. could you describe what kind of data it is. what it is used for and how long is it chats. with the individuals have any idea that this data may be collected that involves them? >> the only data that we are collecting off of our shadowhawk is color video. we can convert that to both

still photographs or video. depending upon the situation, we would obviously store that video for criminal purposes. i.e. if our swat team is going in on an individual or it it is a high-risk warrant, we would also have that video or photographs preserved as evidence. it does have a system, a forward-looking infrared camera system. however, the idea behind that was more for searching for lost persons in our national forests to be able to identify them. >> let's say you have a tip that a farmer was using some of his or her acreage, and they had a plot of marijuana growing.

and you wanted to check that out with one of these vehicles. would there be a way to do that without requiring a search warrant, or would you be within limits? how would you handle a situation like that? >> as indicated earlier, the supreme court in 1924 established 1924 doctrine that allow those things to be observed that the majority of the public could see. in responding to the example that you present, the reality is, and this is based upon law enforcement, investigation techniques and etc. -- utilizing

this drone to observe a marijuana field would not be appropriate. it would not be a good investigative tool because of the constraint that the faa puts on the use of uavs by law-enforcement agencies. find no higher than 400 feet atl. and because of the noise in the sight of it. if we are trying to investigate whether there is a marijuana field to continue with their investigation and ultimately arrested suspects, the uav is not it. >> sir, are you comfortable that enough attention is being given to the individual rights and civil liberties of citizens, given the use of this type of surveillance? >> i'm not sure that comfortable would be the right term. we do respect the fact that law enforcement is not at this time

and use drones for broad and untargeted access. with verse that to supreme court precedent, it allows for aerial surveillance in open fields. however, recently the supreme court did investigate a case in u.s. versus jones of police using gps without a warrant to track a suspect. drones allow for the same type of pervasive and intensive surveillance that the gps allows for. and in that case, justice scalia wrote in circumstances involving dramatic change for the best resolution to privacy concerns must be privacy regulator. we represent a jump in technology with drones with normal tracking of an individual with policemen and a police car come as drones represent to aerial tracking in a helicopter airplane. >> thank you very much, and thank you mr. chairman for the

very interesting information. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. davis. i apologize again for my oversight. >> speaking of oversight, this has been a very productive and insightful hearing. let me just close by saying that as a former federal prosecutor, i recognize the value -- the legitimate law enforcement value of technology. i think the balance is privacy and security. obviously the fourth amendment applies here. the case law is that were set forth -- it is there. i have stated my prior career. this is an evolving field. there are thousands of the things that can be deployed in the skies. in the next couple of years, we may see more than a couple thousand, maybe 10,000 of these things. i think it is incumbent upon the

department of homeland security to come up with a policy. to come up with a security analysis. i think one thing that we can all agree on, on both sides of the aisle of this committee, both republican and democrat, and i think all three of the witnesses -- they agree on one thing. that is that dhs has a role. i think mr. billingham -- local law enforcement does the backend. and ma'am come as a expert of privacy, she should be involved in this issue. we cannot walk away with that as a common goal and understanding. i hope that this week that the department. withoutcome i do want to thank the witnesses. i think the members for their questions. thank you so much. this hearing is now adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today the "newshour"'s judy wood rough and gwen ifill

discuss the 2012 campaign and specifically what pbs is planning. see it live starting at 1 eastern here on c-span2. wednesday on washington journal, a spotlight on magazines focuses on generational warfare. nick gillespie, editor editor-if of reason.com will discuss his article on the gap between older and younger americans when it comes to entitlements. that's live wednesday at 9:15 a.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ ♪ >> watch booktv and american history tv the weekend of august 4th and 5th as c-span's local content vehicles explore the heritage and literary culture of louisville, kentucky, home of churchill downs, the louisville slugger and its old independent bookstore, carmichaels. >> a lot of the stores that i've

seen fail are stores that were opened by people who were interested in having a business, not that they had an attachment to books or a love of books, but, you know, they were business people. i think you really have to have kind of a gut attachment to books, to care enough about them because your customers are like that. i mean, they come because they really care about books. >> watch for booktv and american history tv in louisville august 4th and 5th on c-span2 and 3. >> now, a look at campaign ads airing this presidential election season. vanderbilt university and yougov researchers presented data on voter responses to current presidential campaign ads and their effect on the election cycle. this event, hosted by the brookings institution, is just under 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon, i'm daryl west, vice president of governance studies and director of the center for technology innovation at the brookings institution, and today we are pleased to welcome you to our forum on new ways of evaluating campaign ads. and this event is being broadcast live on c-span3, and so those of you who wish to post comments or ask questions, we've set up a twitter hashtag at twitter bi ads, that's hashtag bi ads, so feel free to post comments or any reactions that you have. i am writing a sixth edition of my book, "air wars," which looks at social media and advertising in the presidential campaign, and i think this year we are moving into a new stage of advertising. the 1960s was the broadcasting era where the campaigns focused on the television networks, and

the candidates aimed for large groups of voters. in the 1970s and 1980s we moved into narrow casting as cable television came into play, and it became possible for the campaigns to target audiences watching shows with known demographics. we then have seen the emergence of microcasting, the development of the internet in 1991 facilitated web strategies based on reaching small niches of voters. but this year i think we're seeing the rise of nanocasting where the campaigns can use social media to reach tiny groups of voters with very specialized, often times almost personalized ad appeal. so, for example, it may be possible for romney to target black conservative voters in ohio upset with obama's support of same-sex marriage. and if he can sway those voters in key states, that may give him a small edge. and, obviously, president obama will be doing the same thing,

targeting groups of voters on his side. i think the strategic changes and the shifts in media cover pose very interesting questions for campaign analysts and for research into campaign advertising. we've already seen millions of dollars in campaign ads this year, and it's only july. we still have a long way to go. there have been questions about how effective various ads are and how fair or misleading they are. in recent weeks we've seen dueling presidential campaign ads over jobs, the economy and tax returns. are those appeals fair, and are they effective? are they actually reaching voters? are obama's criticisms of bain capital gaining traction, or is the economy such a strong factor in voter decision making that those types of attacks won't matter? today we're hosting a discussion about new ways of judging ads. we have researchers at vanderbilt university as well as

yougov's ad rating project that are measuring reactions through a nationally-representative sample of voters, two particular ads, and you'll see some of those ads today. voters are being sent the actual ads and then asked a series of questions regarding their impressions. so we're not relying on pundits in that project, we're not asking analysts to evaluate, you know, is this ad effective, is it misleading. they, those research, actually, are going out to voters and getting their impressions. to discuss the ad-rating project, we will hear first from john geer who is the gertrude conaway vanderbilt professor of political science at vanderbilt university. john is the author of five books and over 20 articles on elections and presidential politics. his most recent book is "in defense of negativity: attack ads in presidential campaigns," published by the university of chicago press, and it won the goldsmith book prize from harvard university. so john will make a short

presentation about the ad-rating project, and then we will hear from some of our other experts. john? >> okay. thank you, darrell. given that this is about political ads, let's start with a political ad. and some of -- this ad is probably one that a lot of you have seen already. >> i'm barack obama, and i approved this message. ♪ o beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. ♪ for purple mountains majesty, above the fruited plain. ♪ america, america, god shed his grace on thee. ♪ and crown thy good with

brotherhood -- >> okay. so when an ad like that comes out, let me just start here, um, it came out about ten days ago, and what happens is that people start to try to evaluate the ad. is the ad fair? is it truthful? is it memorable? they basically want to figure out, does this ad cross the line? and this ad was particularly of interest because of romney's pretty bad singing which i can hardly hold him accountable for, but the point is this ad got some attention because of that. and so then the process begins about how to judge these ads, whether it's fair or unfair. and in this particular campaign, we are going on the inundated with ads. we already know the amount of advertising that's going to be produced and aired is unprecedented. we also know based on some of ken goldstein's data that most of those are going to be negative, i guess about 90%. there's just going to be an

outpouring of these ads, and we need to have some way to try to adjudicate them. and one way people have adjudicated them -- that's just a copy of the ad -- is to talk to academics, for example, to talk to other journalists, to talk to experts in the field. that's one way to do it. but another part of this process has been reliance on fact checks. and fact checks are an important part of the process. but fact checks have some problems. um, first of all, candidates are often vague in their own stances on issue, and so trying to hold them accountable for exactly what they meant or said, are they telling the truth, is tricky and fraught with difficulty. candidates and their campaigns, of course, know that fact checks exist, and so they're creating ads to try to get around them, to make sure their ads can be defense and avoid the criticism of fact checks. we also know like this particular ad we just saw, it's a pretty vague ad in the sense that it makes claims about

outsourcing jobs, but it doesn't say how many. maybe "vanity fair" was one source, but there isn't a heck of a lot to check. and i think a fundamental problem is the campaigns are about exaggeration. campaigns are about putting the best foot forward of their candidate and the worst foot forward of the opposition. and so in some sense all messages are at one level misleading. and so trying to adjudicate exactly where that line is and try to check these so-called facts is tricky. what we're doing here at the vanderbilt/yougov ad-rating project is moving in a different direction. what we plan to do is democratize the process because we now have the technology through yougov able to to ask the public what they think about these ads rather than guessing whether they're fair or unfair, let's ask the public. and so what this project is about is, first of all, we will identify controversial and game-changing ads, ads that are

going to shake things up. in fact, when the america the beautiful ad came across the airwaves, a number of people including some in the audience here, said this is an ad you should study. this is a controversial ad and one that, potentially, will get a lot of attention. and i'll talk in a second about how we're going to pull that off. we then show these ads through yougov's technology to 600 americans, and this is a representative sample. the results will be available 36 hours after i give the ad to yougov. so we have very quick turn around time. we will also have a web site set up, vanderbilt set up a web site where you can actually see the results of these ads, and we will make them available very, very quickly, probably totally within 40-45 hours after we put an ad in. there are going to be questions about the emotional reactions to these ads. does it make you angry? does it disgust you?

does it make you happy? also about specific evaluations, were the ads unfair, was it untruthful, was it memorable? and also some evaluations of romney and obama. importantly, we have an oversample of 200 pure independents, that is people who do not have any partisan lens. so, therefore, they judge those ads slightly differently -- more than slightly -- than partisans because we know republicans like republican ads and democrats like democratic ads. so we have these pure independents as kind of a check. and also, of course, you know, this election in some sense is about luring that 5% who are pure independents in those 20% of the battleground states. so it's important to look at this group. we have already conducted ten ads. we have looked at ten different ads to provide our baseline. four are positive, six are negative. and the actual ads are available up on the vandy web site that is ready for your clicking on, so to speak. each ad can stand on its own, and you can look at these various variables, you can

compare it to other specific ads, let's say you want to see how america the beautiful stands up to another attack ad. you can compare negative to positive, you want to see how women look at ads, in fact, we'll look in a little bit about maybe the role of gender. so we have all these things going for us. one of the things we pondered for long and hard is how exactly to change -- not to change, but to identify the game-changing ads. well, fortunately, fred davis has agreed to help us. fred davis is a republican consultant of some note, did the mccain ads, and he has agreed to help us identify the game changers, the controversial ads. and so one of the things we're going to be doing is identifying those. any of you who happen to think a particular ad should be studied, you should e-mail us. you should contact us. because we're going to try to look at as many ads as we possibly can. obviously, there are limitations to both resources and to, you know, basically the ability to put that many ads in the hopper,

but we will do our level best. so fortunately, fred has agreed to be part of this and has already been a useful contributor to the process. so let's take a look at some data. first of all, it's actually useful to compare negative to positive ads. why? because there's an assumption that everybody likes positive ads and people dislike negative ads. well, this table should quickly, basically, tell you that's not true. if you take a look at disliked, 46% on average, that's almost 3600 different people looking at six different ads, they didn't like those ads, but look at the positive ads. it's about 35%. the negative ads are viewed with more disgust than positive ads, that's no surprise, but look at untruthful. it's about the same. or unbelievable. that is there's not this huge outpouring of support for positive ads. you want to have baselines, you want to be able to put these data into context, and this kind

of data's up on the vandy web site. to continue just to go through, and i also want to be able to turn over, um, to my partner in crime, doug rivers, to discuss some of the specifics of the methodology, let me just give you some other quick looks at what these data can provide. here is the public's emotional reactions to the obama ads, to two obama ads. one is the america the beautiful which is in the green, and the number one which was a series of attacks about the lack of accomplishments romney had in the state of massachusetts. and as you can see, there's some things that are similar, but there's also some differences. the america the beautiful ad made people a little bit more disgusted and angry. again, that's useful to know. and, remember, we have a baseline to compare this. that is we have those ten ads in the bank that we can use as a standard to judge whether this ad is really kind of crossing the line and moving the discussion in ways that the public does not like. here's specific evaluations of the ad. unfair, untruthful, negative. we actually asked people if they

think an ad is negative and a lot of times, again, reflecting the problem with the term, um, you know, many people think positive ads are negative, especially if they're partisans from the other side. but notice the memorable line. that is that the america the beautiful ad is memorable. and one of the things we see from these data is that as ads become more, generate more discussed, they also become more memorable which is not necessarily a surprise, but again, it underscores why negative ads may be so powerful. here is a graph looking at romney's doing fine ad which attacked obama for making that statement at a press conference that the private sector's doing just fine, and there were a lot of different versions of this particular ad, but we ran with one ad, and here's simply a compareson of the democrats and the republicans and the independents. and it works roughly as you think. look at how the independents are right in between, underscoring the value of going after 200 pure independents. it's costly, it's harder because there aren't all that many left

in this polarized world that we now live in, but it's important because these are the ones who are probably going to end up deciding the election. so we see those breakdowns. and here's, finally, some amazing differences. obama ran an ad talking about the ledbetter act and other things that were important to women, and i decided to compare republican males versus democratic females in all these various measures. look at the disgust level, unfair. nearly 60% of republican males thought the ad was unfair, about 5% of democratic women. look at the negative measure. again, nearly 40% of republican males labeled this positive ad as negative. and look at the memorable scale. really stark, dramatic differences. so the real advantage of this is we're going to have systematic, reliable data to be able to judge these ads that will provide not only description about the particular ad, but be able to put it in a context that

then you can do some evaluation, some judgment. it is not that this is the end all and be all of rating ads or evaluating ads, but it's an important piece of the puzzle that we now have available because of changes in technology and development in internet polling. and so to deal with some of those issue, i'm going to turn it over to doug river, professor of political science at stanford and chief scientist as yougov. >> so john wanted me to say a few words about the methodology used on in this project. um, this was not a project that could be done using conventional telephone polling. it's kind of hard to show people ads over the phone. um, so it's a case where the newer technology of internet surveying is essential. most of the campaigns themselves have moved their online ad testing from focus groups where they used to be conducted to

online surveys. and internet polls make a lot of people nervous. some newspapers won't report them because they're under the misimpression that the samples are composed of a bunch of 23-year-old computer geeks. here's how we do it at yougov. since 2004 we've recruited about two million panelists, primarily via internet advertising for particular studies. the 600 people who are chosen each week to view these ads are selected to be representative of the u.s. citizen population in terms of age, gender, race, education, geography, voter registration, about seven other variables. um, the sample does not have noninternet users because all of the people on the panel take the

surveys via the internet. but what we do is we substitute low technology users with similar demographics to represent the noninternet population that's missed in our panel. does it work? um, well, in 2006, 2008 and 2010 we hit the national election vote outcome within 1%, so this is the 2010 midterm. picture looks similar for the other years. so the performance in terms of the aggregate national results has been quite good. according to the national council on public polls, the average error for the yougov polls at the state level was 1.7% versus 2.4% for live interviewer/telephone polls and 2.6% for robopolls. so we think this methodology

provides an accurate way of getting a picture of how people actually assess these ads. [background sounds] [background sounds]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. so we've heard the presentation. they're going to be doing these surveys periodically through the general election, so i think over a period of time we're going to have very interesting evaluation and data that you can use to compare the different ads on the various dimensions that they talk about. so i want to introduce the other three members of our panel, get their reactions, and then we'll have a conversation. like to welcome lynn vavreck to brookings. lynn is a professor of political science at ucla. she is a co-author of a

forthcoming princeton university e-book entitled "the gamble: choice and chance in the 2012 election." and the first three chapters of that book, actually, are going to be out by mid august, so you'll have a chance to look at them online, and then the rest of the book will come out after that. she also is the author of a different princeton university book entitled "the message matters: the economy and campaign effects in presidential elections." i think everybody's going to be watching to see how 2012 stacks up on that dimension. ken goldstein is the president of kantar media which is the leading company for tracking campaign ad buys. you see many of his data on ad trends in leading newspapers and television stories. previously, he was of a professor of political science at the university of wisconsin. he's the author of "campaign advertising and american democracy" and also "interest groups, lobbying and

participation in america." jer missouri peters -- jeremy peters is a political reporter with "the new york times." he covers the presidential campaign with a focus on media and advertising, and i'm sure many of you have read his stories about how the candidates in various groups are using ads to convey their message, messages to voters. previously, he spent several years in the times' albany office where he chronicled the ups and downs of eliot spitzer and david paterson among others. he was also part of the times team that won a pulitzer prize in 2009 for breaking news. so, lynn, why don't i start with you. you've written extensively on the factors that effect presidential campaigns, you've written about the economy, you've written on ads and the media and so on, so when we're tic thinking about 2012, what is it that sways elections? >> well, i think that's a great place to start. why are we interested in studying political advertising? um, and the obvious answer might

be because it matters to election outcomes. and the problem with that is that that answer's not so obvious. if we just looked at what consultants and candidates and journalists and ad buyers and ad makers wanted us to believe, we would come away thinking that the advertising was really the driving force behind any campaign at any level. but the academic research is a little more mixed than that, and as a way of introducing you to that set of findings, i thought i would offer you two vignettes. the first is a story about the 2000 presidential election, the last weeks of the 2000 campaign saw george bush behind in critical battleground states that he needed to win. the media was talking nonstop about a decades-old drunk driving arrest, not helping his chances. and in states where there was no political advertising, where neither candidate was on the air with an ad, al gore surged in the polls. in the battleground states where

bush outspent gore by 5 to 4, he showed more ads, he gained in the polls. this research is in a book on the 2000 election that came out of the university of pennsylvania by johnston hagen and jamison. and their claim is that that advertising in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign in the battleground by george bush, his ability to outspend al gore helped him win that 2000 election. okay. ads matter. they're critical. they determine a presidential election. okay. another vignette from texas in the same year, 2000, governor rick perry running for re-election. in a standard move, he ran a series of get to know you ads, and in an unstandard move, he allowed a team of academics to help him assign the ads. so they randomly decided which ads to air when and how often to air them. and the idea was to run a true experiment and then find out if these ads actually mattered.

and in rick perry's case, the ads did matter when they were on the air. his favorabilities went up by five percentage points while the ads were on television. but the week, the minute that the ad came off the air, his favorability ratings fell back to their original level. okay, so that research is published in the american political science review by gerber, gimp l, green and shaw. so those two projects tell different stories about the effects of advertising. in the latter case, the ads didn't matter very much at all. the decay was rapid, so the effect was there, but then it rapidly went away. in the first case, the ads were determinative. so we have these two possibilities; ads matter a lot, or they matter very little. and in 2006 i set out with some colleagues at ucla to try to figure out how rapidly the effects of ads decayed. and our takeaway after looking at the 2000, 2004 presidential elections and governor, house and senate elections in 2006 was

that the effects of advertising decay very rapidly. in the presidential elections, most of the effect of the ad is gone within three or four days of it airing. a small effect will persist up to four to five weeks. but in the down ballot elections, those effects are gone within a day of the ad being on the air. okay, so this brings us to this question of why are we so interested in advertising, and why is there so much of it? um, and i think the answer to that is, um, it goes along with this story that darrell was talking about in terms of the change in advertising. so in the book that i'm working on on the 2012 election, we've spent a lot of time looking at media cover coverage, and we see some patterns. the coverage of the campaign drives public opinion, and as the coverage changes, public opinion changes. so there's a nice fidelity and responsiveness there.

now, unlike the ads, the media coverage changes during the primaries pretty rapidly, so we can see these fluctuations. but advertising typically we see the decay, and then it may be a week or two before another memorable ad comes out. and so you can't track it the way you can media coverage day by day by day. but there is this nexus between advertising and media, and, you know, there are people who specialize in this. and the fact now that an advertisement isn't just meant to persuade, i think, is very important. and it makes john and doug's project, i think, very timely and very important. so advertisements are now reflections of the campaign. they are seen, i think, as a way of branding the candidates and their campaigns. and they are produced to get media coverage. they want people like jeremy to write about these ads. and so they reflect the values of the candidate and his or her campaign. they reflect the cht