you chose online privacy as an issue that he wanted to stress. why? >> well, the national association of attorney-general

has initiatives. the president last year. he picked on human trafficking, a great issue of reason and underexposed. it was important throughout the year to have a theme and expose the other 49 attorneys general to that issue. i felt the privacy in the digital age, privacy on the internet was a critical issue for -- a bipartisan issue that affects everybody. everyone for the most part, at their home, the library, at work, they're going to be buying and purchasing things. susceptible to having their privacy rights infringed. now, we don't look at it as we are going to indict the internet market or the providers. we are doing is trying to have a conversation about where the line between privacy and the legitimate business rights of the internet providers, where should that be drawn? people would drive in a different place, but we want to have that i like to make sure consumers are protected in terms of privacy, but that google and

other internet providers are able to conduct business because most of what we do on the internet is freak. but basically have a legitimate interest in advertising. >> host: why are you looking at that issue at the state attorneys general level? >> guest: well, we have really become the defacto internet police, the attorney-general level. we have done a number of cases, whether craigslist, my space, facebook, interaction with them all the time because we are the project -- protectors of the consumers, consumers, people on the internet. the federal government is focus is properly they should be on terrorism and, and security in those types of issues. local da are focused on street crime, rape, robbery, murder. we have relief that the internet providers sort of do it themselves up to this point and we have taken a regulatory role over the internet at the attorney-general level. >> host: of want to read an article from our guest reporter.

in july she wrote this article. here is the first sentence. when the obama administration in february ruled that its approach to protecting consumer privacy online it put as much emphasis on industry self regulation as it did in its call for legislation to provide consumers with privacy protection. >> and there is, you know, the industry -- industry self regulation component is essential in the sense that it is a free-market. people will go places where they're protected. look at ebay. you buy a product. in maryland, buy a product in oregon. a person's sense you that product and it is not good. first of all, who has jurisdiction to bring that case? the local da, attorney-general. and then, you know, for ebay people keep sending fraudulent products and no one is going to use it anymore. you will not pay the money to get the bad product. they have an interest in

regulating their on-site to make sure that it works. the government also has an interest in regulating fraud that does occur. at the kid is a dual approach, but there are people who cut corners, and there are a lot of other interests that come in. one of the ones that we are working on is protection of property, american intellectual property. go on rosetta stone, type in rosetta stone on the internet. four of the five ads on the right side are for knockoff residence down counterfeit companies in china. now, we need to protect our consumers because they're going to pay money for products and they're not gone to get what they pay for in return. >> host: and juliana. >> guest: are you hearing from consumers this is a concern, privacy is a concern? one thing i have heard from companies, where is the harm? we don't see the consumer harm. you hearing from your constituents that this is a concern, something you should be watching? >> people are very concerned about privacy and the internet.

when the google came out with their privacy policy, they are going to look at your personal e-mail accounts and couple that with all other applications, youtube and google maps and develop deep and personal profiles and use that to laser focus advertising team, people have concerns about it. if they locate your accounts looking for certain words and then go send adds to your computer based on those, it is not that dissimilar from someone listen to your phone calls and then sending e-mail to your house based on the content of their calls. people are concerned about privacy, but they're willing to compromise some of their privacy to have the access. so the question is whether the invasion of privacy is an appropriate one an unacceptable one. think about toying airplane every day. we now realize it is okay. we will let out privacy be

invaded by going through metal detectors. now, the indigo. when we put the new x-ray machines in people, zero : 201 videos of me naked? now people are starting to be okay with it. there was some bush back. the next, a strip searches of everybody. that would probably be unacceptable. so consumers and people are willing to sacrifice some of their privacy for a bigger gain, i.e., be able to go on a computer and search for anything and get information at their fingertips for free, but perhaps not all of their privacy. >> guest: do you favor, this idea of allowing consumers to opt out of having these targeted ads based on their personal preferences? >> and so what we have seen as we sort of the into this issue, different companies and people, two issues that really surface are now.

i don't want to be searched. i don't want to be followed on the internet by this particular family. second, transparency. what are they doing with my information? when you buy a product in the internet from someplace how they collecting it, storing, protecting it from hackers, and to whom i did disseminating that affirmation. u.s. is selling that to and for what purpose? you ought to have the ability to opt out of that. >> can this be done on a state-by-state level? >> it can. we work most effectively collectively. the attorneys general. the picture, the tobacco litigation. attorney-general on the modern-day map or most recently the mortgage foreclosure settlement, $26 billion involving all 50 states in the united states where we're

helping people get out of foreclosure. so when we work collectively, yes. we have that kind of impact. internet companies like us to get together because they don't want to have 50 different regulations that they have to comply with. the federal government is much slower pretty much on everything in terms of regulation. if something gets done by the federal government everybody agrees it ought to be done, but we sort of push the envelope a little bit more on the regulatory side. the technology is being pushed much faster. so the laws are woefully behind the technology. i just work on a bill this year in maryland talking about e-mail harassment. you know, electronic harassment. the only way that you could be accused of several bullying organ joel for arresting somebody electronically was by e-mail. how many kids in victims of cyber bullying are using e-mail? we had to update that to include social networking websites, testing and so forth. laws i that far behind technology. >> so is maryland, a specific or

unique set of laws? >> no. no. they don't. different laws regarding different issues. for example, the electronic harassment statute which different than a dozen other states, but the basic principle is the same. what we're trying to do is really not establish laws as much as have a dialogue. where should that line b? gin know, where is the line between privacy and the legitimate business interests of the internet companies. they are very few things that you pay for with that getting a product back. you can go on there. maybe you once ads that are about something. you know, yards e-mailing back and forth about the chart that you just got, how you like to drive trucks. all of a sudden you're starting to get chevy truck ads or ford truck ads. that might be something you're much more interested.

so, there are people that are interested. you're going to get ads. that is going to happen. otherwise there is no incentive. so the question for the consumer , are they relevant and should they be relevant? >> well, you did mention and g male. you wrote a letter to larry page of google requesting a meeting and signed by 35 other ag's around the country. their changes and privacy. were you able to effect any change in did you have that? >> we held a number of meetings. going and working through this process. i have to say, it has been interesting because most of our interaction with internet companies have resulted in agreements. i would not say settlements, but that is to where we have to sue them and we settled, though sometimes it does happen. but mostly we just come to an agreement as to what is appropriate.

with no really concerning. how does that affect children and the laws? so we're able to meet and talk about their particular privacy policy. we have not come to the following resolution that is ongoing, but companies that are basically monopolies, whether you can argue their monopoly in a legal sense, certainly in the pedestrian cents. everyone uses that in their search engine. their interest in maintaining privacy might be reduced. and so there are even bigger issues regarding privacy than the companies that really have a huge market share. >> you're probably aware of the commission last week reaching a settlement with google over allegations they violated a previous settlement last year and privacy. google agreed to pay a $202 million fine. they had more than 40 million in the bank at the end of 2011. steve feel like they have gotten off too easy? is sort of came back several

times the for the federal trade commission allegations related to privacy. what is your -- >> i was not involved in those negotiations, so i don't know whether it is a good or bad settlement. it certainly sounds like there will get up the next day and go back to work in shape that right off. it is not going to drive them into bankruptcy. all we want to do is make sure, invented in 1999. you know, so it is -- not great, but about 13 years in. even exists. in so what is appropriate for c-span.org to do vis-a-vis the consumer and still being relieved fleshed out, you know, cases like that where those are important. i think at least as important from the attorney general level because we actually are able to us, some of us are more active and have -- there is no privacy position within her office.

resources to do that. she's doing a great job out there, but these are places that the company's worry about and need to worry about. we are representatives of the people. that is what we do. we have different priorities, but we are all consumer advocates. as the bread-and-butter of will we do as attorneys general. >> would you favor federal privacy legislation, have congress pac covered something that -- pass something that cover the whole country. >> absolutely. that would be much better. it is unlikely that the federal government, would ever come to some sort of an agreement. some of it could become political somehow. but really people's privacy should not be political. where that line should be john with seemingly be best at the federal level. and then we should and do have concurrence authority. the consumer protection bureau,

one of the former attorneys general is also getting into the space a little bit as well on the federal side. there will be a lot of different people looking at these issues as it becomes more and more important. i actually picked. and yet would be present a couple of years back. vice-president. so forth. as said, this would be a great issue. it affects everybody, bipartisan, something we need to resolve. don't worry. in two years it will be fixed. a different issue. it is really not. we are really on the cusp of this issue being more and more important to consumers as they, you know, go on as site and map out a trip to their vacation next week. the next time, the bed-and-breakfast of that place. you know, gas stations, well, that is spooky. and people want to know, where they doing with an affirmation?

calendar protecting it? to the giving it to? and so i think that has become a bigger issue. >> do you support the obama administration for the two-pronged approach? they say that they favor privacy legislation and what congress to pass a bill, but at the same time they're launching these meetings to try to get industry privacy codes of conduct. >> i think that is the only way to go. and i don't think this is an area where government should make all the rules. at think their is a huge, huge rule for industries that have been self regulating. you know, facebook has a lot of money being paid to make sure there are secure. tickets are being taken out of their homes. facebook is compromised in any way, it hurts. the next thing will happen. so then they have an interest. so the regulation. it is not that dissimilar from

the real world. the virtual world is in his sense, regulations. there is also some governmental oversight which means no part of it. >> this is "the communicators," the weekly look at technology and public policy. this week the attorney-general of maryland also the president of the national association of attorneys general. our guest reporter of the national journal. you mentioned cyber bullying earlier in a couple of other issues. what about for those under 18? should there be special rules, special laws included when it comes to privacy? >> and when you're talking about privacy, many different areas, under it. we talked about data collection and dissemination. then we talked about intellectual property protection. you know, on-line payments on mobile devices. where it that's going to have all this. buying everything with our

iphone, turn on our car with our iphone. how is that information protected, their financial and permission protected. cyber bullying is one of those areas that comes under privacy in the digital age. yes, we should be looking at how to protect people under 18 it in december bullying context. social media context. but this cannot talk on the phone anymore. the grants. the way they communicate history text in and social networks. and so we need to -- certain rules. the issue that we have been grappling with over the last few weeks and months is actually going well. thirteen. right now, and regional lines differ on this issue. facebook has 7 million plus kids under 13. how they get on it? the parents want them on it. a sign them in. kids aren't lying and parents are hoping to get on the internet, to get on to facebook.

7 million children. brothers and sisters. that is heather communicate with friends. and so the question then is, do we work with facebook to make it so that they cannot get on, technology increases. identify these kids quicker and earlier? or do we acknowledge that is happening and say, you need to have different privacy policies and privacy standards and privacy settings for kids under 13. different people can advertise for those. you ought to have, for example, on sunday morning cartoons on television. the 13 crowd. you know, the concern which sotheby's the issues in that kind of thing. and so it is an interesting debate, i think, at least, on how to resolve that. >> why is that your or the government's role at some level of the police whether are not kids can go on facebook? isn't that a parental role, just

like watching tv? >> the parents have a big role on social networks. none of them, very few people -- well, a lot more now, but certainly not every parent knows how they work. not every parent is privy to their child's facebook account. in the government has a role because we're there to protect consumers and kids. nine year olds are on there and they become, you know, susceptible to sexual predators and other people, we are the ones that have to go after them. we prefer not to have a playground for sexual predators' on facebook. so, you know, for example, if you're talking about kids him how do you make sure that no one under 18 can contact over 18 can contact them other than the parents were people designated by their parents? sports coaches are teachers and how far beyond that to you want to get. i would argue not very far because then you get the

problems that we have. you know, you're talking about parents. it's interesting. in terms of privacy and other issues, the issue five years ago was sexual predators'. social network website. a lot of kids were taken out of the virtual world and being violated. that happens still. you're much, much fewer cases. very few cases anymore, and i would argue that is because parents really get that and talk to kids about that and say, don't deprive an affirmation out to people you don't know and so forth. i think education is absolutely an essential component of it. parents have a huge role. ♪ other issues when it comes to privacy and under 18 still major issues? in what has your experience been like? >> well, cyber bullying is real. people always think, it happens to mike and your kid. more and more of a problem because hiding behind the

anonymity of the internet. and so there has always been bullies on the playground, true, but when the bullet was on the playground of the people were able to see it and you knew exactly who the bullet was. here is a little bit different, and i think that it is a contributor to the huge problem that we have with suicide in the united states, and i think that that, the cyber bullying peace, i think, is pretty and potent issue. >> and if you go to the website of douglas gansler, you will find all sorts of affirmation and resources for parents of children under 18. >> and probably one, opening up their six children 13 and gender. how do you think -- will that make the bullying situation worse? what is your take on that? >> well, as i moned to my

actually spent an enormous amount of time talking to facebook about this very issue and what makes sense and sort of the argument. most people think that kids under 13 not to be out in the streets playing kick the can. and you would rather not have kids sit in on the screens all day. so that said, there are 7 million kids on their and growing, so the question is how to protect them, how to make sure that it is a case that they are on their and the parameters under which they operate. enhance the amount of cyber bullying that goes on? probably. but that is why we want to make sure that there are protections built in in that you're able to -- there are avenues to report. and that is what parents -- the predator stuff, parents are going to have to educate their

kids. something very appropriate. let your uncomfortable, you need to talk to your parents, a teacher, whoever you're comfortable talking to about this before it gets worse. >> the children's online privacy protection act is aimed at children under 13. providing enough protection? kids and the 13th. enough protections in the? >> no. >> abcaeight. >> in that time again, the federal government, it's pretty vanilla, but i think that one of the insidious potential components of opening facebook up the kids under 13 is it just who is advertising to them, who is the new market that is getting at them. other fast food chains going after them? are there is soda companies going after them? you really want to make sure that there are -- the advertisements, because that is why they're doing it. really child appropriate.

in that think that that suddenly is one of the components. >> i want to come back to one of the earlier questions and get more specifics. what would you like to see congress do? what could they do best in your view to help the attorneys general? >> well, i think that there should be privacy policies that most companies now do have. very accessible right out front, very easy to get, not have to go to dashboards and different levels of their sight didn't find something that is 30 pages long. perot, by the way, every time you buy something we are selling it to 45 other companies and bring in a truck market to you. so that transparency needs to be a component of it is to be easily accessible. the opt out, you can opt in, a little bit and ambitious. but the ability to opt out, i think, is essential. so there are at least two components that we would like to see the federal government get

involved in. >> and microsoft is change their policy on their new operating system to opt in? >> which is what you were saying earlier about the industry component. microsoft and do that and sickened by the way, go to as because we have this. no one else does. so i think that is a piece of where the indices that actually works. yes to no licking resonated them. we talked to them and the toes of ahead of time and we are preceded. now, tomorrow to jettison that policy, but at least it is there now, and if you have government oversight and compass, it would prole better. >> what is your view on how the obama administration has approached privacy online, the justice department,. : estimates that track. >> we have had positive dealings with justice on it. and, you know, ftc end of the company's, the industries that are involved. a few of them. the consumer financial protection bureau will take a bigger and bigger role.

not only smart, but an attorney general, and he gets it, and he is a consumer advocate, so they will take a bigger role and hopefully be more effective and some of the others. we have had nothing deposit dealings with justice. it is -- the government bureaucracy and the inertia that is inherent is much more difficult to break through. they have been supportive, but i think we have been driving a lot of this. >> i want to shift focus and talk about angina's gambling. in your state there has been talk of possibly including on-line gambling as part of an effort to expand gambling in the state of maryland. where do you stand on that issue? >> i have not taken a big stand and that one way or the other, but it is certainly dangerous. you know, most of the people are addicted. addictive gambling, addicted practice, you can lose a lot of money and it tends to be done by

and people. it is not taxed, so it is -- there is a lot of money being transacted without the government getting anything out of it. so, you know, that said, there are number of overseas gambling sites that people use whether it is in costa rica or the cayman islands or elsewhere. so the reality is, it does exist. so i think that is certainly the federal government would be best positioned to have regulations. for drug death online gambling the federal government ought to be regulating business to the right now is international. by definition. >> as you are probably aware, the justice apartment last year reinterpreted the wire acts to basically open the door to internet gambling by saying that the act only applies to sports betting. now you're seeing stay starting to move on this issue. it sounds like you believe that there should be, the federal government is to step up here and clarify the law. >> i do.

i think that there's millions and millions and millions of dollars being spent over the internet all the time. gambling. and that it is a very, very -- it is in need of regulation. it is one of those in the sense that there is none. regulating. so the ones that we actually get , most business and move into this particular sites. kiddy stealing everyone's money. but you going to do? nothing. >> is this an issue that you're looking into? >> not much. not an issue that is addressed much because it is, there is nothing more federal. coming from outside of our country into our country. so, really, we kind of know where our bounds are. >> one final question. another engine that issue which is something that is coming up in congress which is internet taxation. that might be coming back as

law, it seems. what is your view from the state level on that? >> well, the privacy issue. an issue that has been talked about a great deal and other states. we all strapped financially. this is a great way of getting some revenue. at the debt ultimately there is going to be taxation on the sales that occurred. how it is done, this is definitely the details. and, is his calling to be -- the are sitting at your computer, the company is located. where is amazon looking to? mn, where these places located. tujunga they pay taxes. thing that will be the issue. clearly they're going to tax its and sales. you know, it is hard bed say tax when you get to the store. it's really not dissimilar. >> attorney general of the state