capability to test to make sure any unmanned air system will have the ability to operate safely in the national aerospace. that is the design of those sites and will certify the operator and in many cases be operational environment. >> you sound confident that that will lead to improvements, any standards that need to be created making sure they -- >> they have 50 different entries petition from 37 states that involved. the six identified in the reauthorization bill you quoted, those are being funded by the states themselves with certification from the michael toscano a. in the future you may see every state that has their own test site in order to be able to assure the technology being deployed in the national airspace is safe.

>> annie stepanovich, some proponents of drone technology have argued current safeguards provide significant protection of privacy and they know it's we have on the books related to the technology, losses already on the books related to use of other technologies that can overlap and include this type of technology. certain remedies that provide certain remedies for violations of those laws. some have suggested these legal protection should apply equally to drones and that they may be sufficient to alleviate any constitutional problems for any privacy concerns. in your view is this approach correct? what are the main differences between manned and unmanned aircraft as it relates to the protection of americans for

their privacy concerns? >> we don't believe there are any federal statutes that would provide limits on drone surveillance in the united states. the privacy laws are very targeted to the approach the united states has taken to privacy and denting compass the surveillance drones can conduct and because of this we're actually advocating additional legislation on drone surveillance. the primary difference between and and unmanned vehicles, this has been brought up, drones are going to be able to conduct more surveillance. they are cheaper to fly, cheaper to maintain and able to conduct an incredible amount more surveillance and individuals to the surveillance and designed, built to design to carry the most invasive surveillance technology on the market today and this further puts individuals at risk. >> part of your analysis has to

do with the virtue of their size and the way many of them are operated. they don't make as much noise, harder to see and harder to hear and can move in and out, you don't necessarily know they are there. the factors that significantly factors into your assessment of that front. is that right? >> yes, senator. in your testimony mentioned several concerns you have about drones. even with current enhancements, present-day technology, places a real significant practical limitations on the use of drones. as discussed in the recent opinion some of the most effective privacy projections are neither constitutional more statutory but practical but as technology advances those practical limitations cease to act as an effective constraint on the privacy concerns we are discussing here.

the technology related to drowns has developed much in the last decade and will continue to advance and make the same concerns more significant. one of my concerns relate to the coming years and likelihood those limitations will recede along with the technological advances. in other words as the technological advances make drones' more effective and more cost-effective these concerns can be more significant. in your view how should the potential for development of drone technology and future uses of those systems affect our analysis here when examining the privacy implications of drone technology? >> the best thing to do because of the incredible advancement of jerome technology and where it is going to be, bruce schneider said today's expense is tomorrow's commonplace. we need legislation on this issue that will be technology neutral and that means it won't

become quickly outdated as technology increases and this is been done in federal laws in the past and as we look at the electronic communications privacy act which is in the process of being updated many years later it was able to hold out through a tremendous events to technology and recently going to need to be updated because of not being able to foresee the future of the internet at that time and it is important for all technology and privacy legislation to see -- b.s. technology neutral as possible. >> thank you very much. the advance of technology i referenced the opening statement, the theft by people's passwords and all that, if somebody broke into your house and did that you would have the arrested. they are doing it by driving by, a egregious breach of people's

privacy. i am going to, senator klobuchar, go back to the floor because of the budget battle, but senator franken offered to take the gavel and i appreciate that. senator klobuchar. >> thank you to all of you and i appreciate being in minnesota with the red river valley wedding and forest fires and those things, public safety here. i am concerned as i hear more about the potential for individual citizens for commercialization of this drone use and the limits that were brought up even in the surveillance piece of this as well so my first question is a follow-up on senator feinstein when asking for michael toscano about the safety issues in the aerospace and i understand all this 400 feet and the limitations but if you started getting these in the hands of people who didn't know how to run them or something went

wrong, what would happen? what would happen if one of them came against a small aircraft or would it matter or if you got a bigger drone isn't there some safety concern with that? >> when you look at the national airspace there are rules and regulations that the faa a says you cannot fly anything within a certain distance of that air space. if you do that, whether it is any type of machine then you are violating the law and there's a safety concern. >> i understand that but what would happen if one of them hit a small plane? when birds a plane. >> you can see what they are and they range from two lbs. to very large systems and any incident where you have if it was a collision, could be damage. >> okay. the second piece of information

getting back to you, ryan calo, commercialization, i know someone asked about it earlier but what are the limits if someone wanted to privately fly one? >> there are state statutes in some instances and a common-law privacy tour intrusion of seclusion. that says that if you really violate people's expectation of privacy you often have to do it repeatedly and through outrageous conduct and someone could sue you in civil court. there is an aerial surveillance case involving trade secrets that came out in favor of the plaintiff. >> could someone by one right now? >> you could go -- >> get a certification from the at a a? >> i don't know if this is put limits to call a drone but for $300, something, an aerial vehicle you could control with your i've had and fly around

your neighborhood and likely you are not going to be running against -- not going to get sued in all likelihood. the faa bans commercial use of jerome today but that ban is said to be relaxed in 2015 and of course have an economic incentive. in my personal view to the extent you are interested this is a wonderful thing because this technology is deeply transformative and basically flying smart phones. once of private industry get their hand on these things we will see some great wonders but we will never get there unless we place some limits and privacy because of our reaction to these drones we are not going to avail ourselves of the technology. >> i like hard last names, amie stepanovich. how would you respond to that? in the hands of private commercialization?

>> i think right now we are seeing already without commercial operated legally operating rhone's, i hear a story of the faa shutting down a commercial operator trying to take advantage of the technology before they're able to. and commercial uses, google has started using them to assist in their operations in other countries not yet in the united states, so they're going to be used commercially and in my opening statement that creates new challenges. >> senator lee was asking about the technologies, according to congressional research service some have facial recognition technology and radar which can see through walls and airport security and layers of clothing. what are some of these more advanced features of domestic drones and how do you see this

being developed? michael toscano? >> the technology being utilized is no different from the technology that exists today and can be used by man systems. there was no technology lead that was taken place by the addition of the uav and the concerns we are having that you might be able to do these things at a very low cost with a larger volume is the same thing that caused the economic benefits in what was seen of the utilization. it is something we have to address because there is the huge upside to this technology and because of that you cannot stop people from this using any technology. facial recognition, for religion or whatever. if they miss use it the laws tell you if you violate the laws you should be punished. >> the laws have caught up with this technology. >> that is the issue we should be discussing, the technology that exists today, not the

delivery system. >> our laws need to be as sophisticated as the people who are potentially breaking them. that is where we are headed. thank you very much. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman and will witnesses for testifying today. it seems to me drones are a technological pull. as with most schools can be used productively or can be abused. when we think about conduct overseas, in particular in counterterrorism, drones have proven an effective tool in certain circumstances and particularly have enabled us to deal with terrorists without placing service men and women directly in harm's way. at the same time it seems to me

that oversees our conduct needs to be consistent with the laws of war. domestically in the united states, our conduct in all circumstances knees to be consistent with the constitution. and how that applies to drone surveillance or a topic for another day, use of lethal force is not necessarily an easy question. i would like to begin with the question for you, which is our their limitations on the uses of drones that your members would support as common sense protection of the privacy of american citizens? >> the easy answer is yes. we already look to case law. one thing we positioned our program on tour concept is we

have not really invented a new ability to collect information. the camera has done that for us. has done that for us for decades so there is case law out there that speaks to the direction of which we take when we consider putting a camera in the air but the fact that it flies on this system or a typical police helicopter really hasn't changed the way we think about this or view it. >> what limitations would your members support? >> let me clarify. the limitations we support are the ones we currently have identified through a study of case law that occurred. >> it seems to me there should be an important distinction between individuals for soon there is probable cause,

substantial evidence to be suspected of a crime and law-enforcement has always had extensive tools for operating in that environment and the collection of data concerning ordinary citizens. when you overlay the availability of drones with the proliferation of things such as stationary cameras. my home town of houston recently voted to take down red light cameras. i think a great many of us, myself included, have very deep concerns about the government collecting information on the citizenry and with the ease and availability of drones there is a real concern that the day to day conduct of american citizens going about their business might be monitored, catalogs and

recorded by the federal government and i for one would have very deep concerns about that. i would ask the question of amie stepanovich. do you share those concerns? and if so, what reasonable limitations should be considered to protect the privacy rights of all americans? >> anytime you come up with a new surveillance technology you are going to have instances where the technology catches bad actors doing bad deeds but those few instances are at the expense of dragnet, constant surveillance of all citizens as they go through rather daily life, not consistent with constitutional protection than what the country was built on. we need to prevent drones' from becoming alternatives for police patrols flying up and down when not talking about aerial drones driving up and down the street,

ethanol sorts of information about individuals supplemented by the facial recognition technology and automatic license plate readers. we need to enforce the work requirement for drones in circumstances where they are collecting criminal evidence and we need to address in addition to law-enforcement use commercial and individual uses of drones. >> michael toscano. >> that is the core of the issue we have here today. the conversation should be focused on what is the government's right to collect, use, store, disseminate, share information? last year we put out a code of conduct. this is how you should use uavs in order to make sure you do not violate the privacy of an individual. the international association of chiefs of police put out their guidelines in which the aclu has

endorsed as being good guidelines to use this technology. there is tremendous opportunity for this technology to use standard isn't a different type of surveillance. the technology is the same technology that exists today, it is how it is being used. i understand the benefits that you get from having a low cost reliable capability that can provide you with the ability to move a mission package payload from one point to another but the human being involved in it as the one that is responsible. just because there isn't a pilot in a plane the individual operating the platform is still responsible. if the person uses in an incorrect way or misuses it then that person should be held accountable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hirono. >> to all the panelists, ryan

calo, your personal mission that the fourth amendment only applies to state actors. so at least there are protections for against unreasonable government intrusion. my concern centers around what happens when 9 state actors can utilize this technology and after 2015 the sky is the limit. do you think congress has the power to prohibit private citizens and corporations from using drones with cameras that are capable of storing images or in fact what is the limit to what congress can do to provide limitations on non state actors and their use of drones? >> i think congress can provide those limits. the first amendment draws a

distinction between stopping someone from talking about something and general prohibition. the government may say that you are not allowed to do x, y and z in order to gather information and that can apply across to the press and individuals or whoever else it might be. so as a consequence yes, they probably can. they wouldn't be able to make content based distinctions about who news drones and who can't but studying basic privacy limits for anyone to use drones will apply in equal measure to individuals in the press and so forth. congress does have that capability. >> coming up with what constitutes these basic privacy limitations. that is the rub. it won't be so easy to come up with that language and with this technology changing as fast as we can sit here and talk about

this, and i was intrigued -- sorry. you know who i am talking about. you said that any laws that we propose should be technology neutral. i am very intrigued by that. what would you consider a technology neutral way to set some limits on the private use of drones? >> the best way is to look at the surveillance drones can conduct, look at data retention, data minimization, making sure no individual has kind of persistent databases of information collected on them. one of the great places we have to turn our the information practices which have been incorporated by the oecd in their guidelines to look at what projections need to be in place

whenever information is collected about individuals. >> amie stepanovich, yea, perhaps other panel members could weigh in on this too. i would think it would be pretty difficult to enforce these kinds of statutes for law-enforcement, for example. if we establish some parameters, geographic parameters or height parameters or visual sighting parameters, who is supposed to enforce whether all these limitations are being matched? >> some things we asked for include audits that would reveal possible violations occurring and private rights of actions of individuals to observe drones' being operated in a way, are allowed to be, can actually bring suit against the drone operator. i want to note at least a federal statute would be enforceable.

michael toscano brought up the guidelines and the chief of police guidelines that have one line about privacy. the chief of police guidelines are a little more protective. neither of those are enforceable provisions. >> the you think a private cause of action that is in the law in this area might be a very important part of any law we propose? >> i am not sure where i come down on that. there are dangers of legislating at the federal level and one approach to think about is to allow the states to come up with individual ways of doing things and see whether they are common law to adapt to changing circumstances so i am not sure i come down one way or the other weather is a good way of private causes of action but some safeguards are necessary because otherwise americans will reject this technology which could be very beneficial. >> my time is up.

>> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me pursue the question that arises from the last response if i may and ask you if whether in fact if there is legislation, shouldn't it be at the federal level because we are dealing with an industry that is federal in scope that pertain to air safety, obviously the faa has a mandate to provide integration by 2015 because of the prospect of 30,000 or more of these uavs, drone's flying around in our air space, isn't this quintessentially an issue for federal regulation if there is going to be legislation? >> the short answer is i don't know.

i completely agree with respect to safety, faa has to have expertise and integrated approach. i also support as a stopgap the idea of asking the federal aviation administration to consider privacy as one of the prerequisites to issuing a licenses. that makes a lot of sense. there is some benefit of the fact that states are laboratories of ideas so some states say anything goes here and other states go nothing goes here and they will learn from that experience. >> i agree the former state law enforcement official, state sometimes are much better equipped and able to deal with these questions. at a certain level, very likely states can safeguard privacy concerns, establish standards that are proven or disproved in the laboratory, justice

frankfurt referred to them as a laboratory for legal development. do you know of any challenges that are ongoing and any members of the panel could respond. challenges either too private practice or law-enforcement actions pending in the courts and maybe i should begin with amie stepanovich. you would know. >> i know of one right now. customs and border protection have an ongoing program with state and local law enforcement and other federal agencies to borrow their predator drones and use them to conduct surveillance that is not related to the border patrol mission. this is something we have been pursuing and submitting today petition to border protection to suspend this practice. >> you are submitting it today. >> in north dakota this practice has been used to conduct

surveillance suspected an alleged cattle thief who once holed up on his property. aide flew the drone of his property and collected information and use it to arrest him. it is the first use of a drone to arrest the u.s. citizen on u.s. soil. >> the courts could be relied on to protect privacy in the law enforcement setting except almost certainly those cases will arise in the context of efforts to exclude evidence. in a criminal prosecution rather than surveillance or monitoring or potentially invasive activity that might not result in prosecution where a motion to exclude evidence would be filed. >> exactly and we believe we need the protection in advance of getting to that stage in the prosecution. when a court challenge has been brought to exclude evidence or

surveillance issues that means the rights have been violated and we think legislative effort could put protections in place to prevent that from happening. >> my view is we need to update the law. clearly there is a need for everyone's interest to update the law if only to provide the industry with the kind of bright line than standards it needs and deserves to develop and apply this new technology. i am amazed the pace that is off by all sides for reliance to the doctrine in the 1986 case involving aerial surveillance from an airplane where the united states, supreme court upheld that practice by law-enforcement officials fear and here we have an entirely new advancing fast-changing potentially very intrusive technology but also with very

positive uses as well if properly channeled. i hope that weather is state courts or state law or federal courts in advance of legislation or federal agencies, the faa applying privacy standards can somehow develop doctrines that update our current constitutional principle and safeguard privacy which is very much in need of protection. not only in the collection of data but also retention and distribution. for me the issues are not only what private companies or the government does to collect data but also how they >> reporter: it, how they store it, how they keep it and what they do with it, selling, exchanging, disseminating. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. as chair of privacies of the committee, senator franken takes of these issues with some frequency and i reminded when i first came to this committee someone noted the work privacy cannot be filed in our constitution but we have established that right and most of us believed it is a very important right that we cherish and wants to protect and that is what this conversation is about. we are trying to take a document, constitution in this case, written many years ago, and apply it to the modern world. at times we have had to struggle with that. the telephone was beyond anyone's imagination when the constitution was written. the trafficking that goes on on computers, 20 or 30 years ago was unthinkable. i will tell you serving as chairman of the subcommittee

that deals with the military and our intelligence operations the capacity that we have for surveillance is dramatically improving and we are using it to our benefit to keep america safe and i am glad the we are. we may lead the world in that category and i want us to continue to but when it comes to this emerging technology that challenge has been discussed at length on this committee. the intersection of our personal privacy and the march of technology and what we need to do by way of law or policy to really face it. professor ryan calo, the cases that you noted in your testimony, as you said, were right on point, more or less supreme court talking about gps

detection of a suspect, thermal imaging and the like. appears to me there is more to be said when it comes to the question of civil liberties, the prosecution of a crime and the use of this technology. what do you think of the major elements that are unresolved in these court decisions. >> there's a tremendous amount of flexibility in the doctrine so at its core what we're talking about is whether someone has the subject of expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept as reasonable. we have a bunch of data points that if someone flies over your house or your company or whatever happens to be, helicopter or plane, your expectation of privacy, people in national aerospace, is not reasonable. or we have cases suggesting that fixing gps device to a vehicle is a technically a trespass and i agree there are not directly

on point. >> what about red light cameras? i am driving through this intersection and didn't even know it. there's a red light camera monitoring my conduct and they end up taking a photograph and sending me a ticket in a week or two. >> they are real dangers there but current constitutional doctrine will not capture that. i don't think that will be seen as violating the fourth amendment and most uses of drones are not going to be seen as violating the fourth amendment. that is the problem which is not just drones but surveillance technology has vastly outpaced privacy law in my view. it needs updating. one of the dangers of regulating in the space and limiting the regulation to unmanned aircraft systems is there are other things like traffic cameras, robots that climb the side of a building. would those be captured by a

system? it is more and updating all privacy laws to reflect these. >> you are in the law enforcement field. follow through on that. currently there are efforts underway in many communities, not all, to collect this information from general conduct of the population. do you see that as a parallel to the use of drones? >> not as a parallel. you speak to the issue at hand as the information. as i am listening to ryan calo i am thinking about medical information. the conversation, medical information, protection that protect my medical information matters that a doctor collects it, you asked that hard question and a nurse doesn't or the physician's assistance is only allowed to ask these questions,

in this conversation it is important to focus on the information. i can tell you that is what my agency stands to focus on the information, it doesn't matter how we collected but how we maintain that public trust by not taking a photo of you with a traffic infraction and putting it on the front page of the paper. >> let me challenge you on that point. it is not a matter how we collected but what we do with it. what about the right to be left alone which is basic in america? with a we're talking law enforcement on one side, private sector on another, generally collecting information about my life -- >> you make a great point. but you bring that question i just want to be left alone in that, and and bring it back not just to law-enforcement but what can we collect and once we have, what can we do with it.

>> professor ryan calo, you first, i ever heard of this common-law court. >> intrusion upon seclusion. >> how often has it been tested? is this established? >> it is and established torch, it was intellectual underpinnings are the same as the right to be left alone, beguine 90 articles have been very influential, set out the elements that are later code of 5 or adopted by other courts. it is not tested all the time. part of the reason is the conduct at issue has to be pretty outrageous as a trigger because all of us are looking at one another all-time so you want to be able to have a threshold. i do tend to agree that there really is a subjective element of harm to living in a society where you feel you are under surveillance. so irrespective of whether data is being collected or shared just feeling like you're living

under drones could have that effect if there are no safeguards in place. >> i wish we had more time. i thank the panel for their contribution. i will tell you -- >> take as much -- >> i have to leave. i want to mention after easter recess we are going to have a hearing in the subcommittee of the constitution about the use of drones in an international context. i am glad senator leahy kicked this off with senator franken but we will get into the question of legal use of drones, the law of war in constitution which is another challenging area of the law but i think you for this hearing. it is timely and important. >> thank you. as senator durbin said, i am chairman of the subcommittee on privacy technology and the law and this sort of seems like it could have been -- this hearing could have been held in that

subcommittee. i am glad we did it as the full committee. this is a perfect example of what i would characterize the constitution as a moving constitution, the founders, it would be fair to say, probably didn't anticipate this. they didn't anticipate the phone. that is why at a certain point, we have to decide whether phone taps are a violation of the fourth amendment and that really came down to people's expectation of privacy. that is kind of a big part of what we are talking about here today. there is no question that this technology has unbelievable

potential for law enforcement, for legitimate law enforcement, for commercial applications, certainly no one would argue agricultural applications, no one would argue mining or all kinds of unbelievable uses of this. but we do have these privacy concerns. one of my questions is about who should oversee this. i will start with amie stepanovich. last year the government accountability office told us, quote, no single federal agency has been static for really designated with specific responsibility to regulate privacy matters.

they were referring to related to domestic drones. there is disagreement on whether that responsibility should be centralized in one body and if so, which agency could do it the most effectively. in your opinion what type of oversight would most effectively protect american civil liberties, their privacy, when it comes to uas. >> there's a stop gap with the faa oversight. and in january of 2012 after the faa petition the faa to implement privacy regulations as part of the process to increase the use of ground in the united states we believe they have a critical role to play in this by

mandating as a contingent on licensing for drone operators to turn over information about what surveillance operations they are going to conduct and make that information publicly available and hold them accountable through sticking to that information. we think the faa is the primary regulating force and we also believe when other entities choose to operate the department of justice, they need to implement privacy regulation and surveillance limitations within their own use of drones with incumbent rulemaking. >> i am not quite sure who is overseeing that but there's a single agency, michael toscano. >> if we have a privacy concern or debate today where would you go for that? you would not go to the faa. they have very limited if any

expertise in the area of privacy. what they do have and what is mandated by them as they are responsible for safety. anything that flies in the national aerospace can only be done by virtue of granting the faa saying it is done in a safe manner and that is the responsibility of the faa and the tremendous responsibility that we take in high regard so i think we should let the faa do what they do best and when you talk about privacy very fortunate to have lawyers still left and right of the engine front-end in back of me. those individuals -- those are the individuals and as we talked about today, this is about privacy in general and the concern of gathering information, how is used, how is stored, how is disseminated and how it is destroyed. that is done through a different framework and so i looked to this about the essence of what

we talk about and you will come from wall whether it is state peeping tom laws or the constitution or the fourth amendment which is based on -- >> you are talking about legislation. and the legislation by necessity will kind of appoint some agency to oversee this and who should that be, prof.? or is it not one agency centralized in one -- >> there's economic scholarship the average suggesting we are faring relatively well with the multiple have approach here and i confess i am not convinced that federal legislation is the right move at this time. i will disagree with michael toscano about the faa. historically the faa has looked at safety but i don't see any reason why the faa could not gain expertise around privacy. received a letter --

>> the faa did not tell g-8 though they have no expertise. >> i recall them saying that, but only in february i received a letter from the faa saying we want your input on how we should think about privacy and testing centers so the truth of the matter is the faa is capable of gaining expertise as any agency and they could be a good repository. >> okay. we will keep thinking about that. we were talking, there was some testimony and talk about questions about or mention of data retention and dissemination. what are the issues and who would be overseeing that? in other words, again, is that a legislative responsibility and

would we be talking about privacy law regarding uav information? >> the privacy act actually does place some limits on sharing among agencies and viable information with respect to government -- >> sorry to interrupt but we have smart phones now and someone referred to this as a flying smart phone. >> that was me. >> we're having a little bit of problems in that regard trying to put a finger on exactly how we regulate that. >> you are preaching to the converted on this issue. the ftc and fcc have struggled with network and the device itself and the apps running on top of the. it is a little bit of a mess.

i am not sure we will fare any better around drones. i think perhaps it is a matter of free on edge. if we want to avail of ourselves of this technology, we should have . if we want to avail of ourselves of this technology, we should have at least something in place so americans feel more comfortable and the most obvious authority is buffet the allied believe we should update fourth amendment law in general to deal with contemporary privacy. >> we're talking about technology we haven't talked about and certainly wouldn't have been talking about ten years ago. i am wondering about nanotechnology. i think people would probably have been surprised before this hearing to see that that is the uas and that is what we're

talking about in large part. how small can these things get? and maybe the answer is we don't know. a thousand years from now i bet you they will be smaller and we may just be brains on a thing so never mind that. let's not go there. what are we talking about here? in terms of the capabilities, obviously -- i will go to klobuchar 11. you get to handle this. talking about technology neutral, we are going to have this technology, going to exponentially get more sophisticated and probably smaller. don't you think? >> i do believe so. one of the major images we think of when we think of drones, big creditor drones are being operated in the united states

but we also have the one that you see on the desk in front of you all the way down to drones' inside the hummingbird being developed and micro drones and drones even smaller so the technology is increasing at an exponentially rapid rate and as we move forward we will see the capabilities of these devices increase. >> presumably at some point you could have one the size of a mosquito that has a battery that operates for weeks and you could have a mosquito following you around and not be aware of it. >> there are already images on line of a mosquito drone being developed by the national security agency and trying to figure out what technology they can put on it to make small enough to put on it. >> god help us if an analyst employee gets a hold of those.

michael toscano. >> i don't know what that meant by the way. >> obviously we had tremendous advancement in technology over the last couple hundred years and we can continue to understand how that may go forward. a lot of that is due to different properties and processing capabilities and things of that nature but the figure was used that there would be 30,000 of these flying in the air space. that was the figure that the revised to 10,000 but when you look at what those 10,000 might be they are not going to be 10,000 drones that are following americans. if you the put the report we did, 80% of the application is going to be in farming, precision agriculture and if you look at the public safety standpoint including the law enforcement and firefighters, first responders, you are going to see that is a small quantity in the bigger picture and when amie stepanovich mentioned one

that was used -- go over a rancher's facility, that was called in by federal and state entities to a federal request, could have been done with a helicopter but the technology was there and available and they took advantage of its of the point we are making is we seem to be fixated on the truck or what if of this thing happening but we already talked about it. the privacy aspect of the information being collected is critical. that is something we have to keep dealing with not just with this technology. 50 years ago we had this thing called the internet that came out of the military and there were many hearings just like this that were concerned about the privacy of this thing called the internet, that you're going to produce personal data on this thing and be connected to all these entities without having any measures in place. 50 years later here we are and the internet is an integral

part, it has helped us with our gross national product of our nation and in the world. it has made our lives better. are there misuses of the internet? we can all the tribute to that and the understand that is a true statement but we now have bullying laws that have come up that said someone is misusing this technology we have to put the right legislation or the right parameters in place to make sure we get to take advantage of the up side which is a huge upside and make sure it is protected. >> no one is questioning of the commercial potential and public safety potential and the public good that can come from this put one of my big duties here in the senate is to look out for people's privacy and professor ryan calo wanted to respond. >> i appreciate it.

i just wanted to use the internet analogy and say when we first deployed the commercial internet many people were nervous about using it. they didn't want to go on and do transactions online and we had to get security adequate enough so people felt comfortable using the internet so it could be what it is today. the same has to be said about drones. if we realize the commercial potential of the roads we need to get these privacy and civil liberty issues -- >> safeguards on hand. the ability to use them the correct way. >> and we concur. >> one last thing that came up and we will bring this to an end. amie stepanovich 11, facial recognition has been brought up and when i start to talk about the technological developments of these, is there fear that this could be used in a way, and

again the fear is we have to address in order to make sure we are able to use them properly, that use of facial recognition and not just in the hands of law enforcement for the government but in the hands of private entities and what possible misuse could this be put to? >> i don't think there's as much fear as a realistic expectation that this will be deployed on drones. we of seen reports that it is being developed and commercial and public entities wishing to deploy on drones. facial recognition technology comes with its own risk because it totally connect individual's life, using a full picture of what happens to an individual throughout the day not only in their public life but there

online transactions, to connect those two separate worlds once you start deploying facial recognition information. this technology in the hands of commercial and government operators increases the surveillance picture for what drove their able to do. >> and could give everyone a sense of having no privacy whatsoever in their lives which is the tremendous loss. we have to make sure we can handle that through the law so that we can be positive uses of this technology. thank you all for your time and your testimony. has been of very productive hearing and is clear to me that the tremendous potential of this technology to create jobs and reduce costs for law enforcement operations cannot be overstated but is also clear that there are

serious privacy and civil liberties concerns felt by all members of this committee. we need to be doing more to prevent drones' from being used in an abusive manner that violate american privacy rights. only if we do this to follow upon professor ryan calo, then that will allow us to do the commercial applications and only if we do that properly. this hearing has been an important first step towards explaining these complex issues and i hope this panel will continue to work with me, all of you, and other members of this committee on appropriate

legislation to address privacy concerns discussed to date. thank you all again for your testimony. the hearing record will stay open for all week. if anyone would like to submit additional statements or questions, this meeting is adjourned, thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> president obama has just completed a trip to the middle east which included visits to jerusalem, the west bank and jordan. the last day of his trip he held of joint news conference with king abdallah mary was after about the diplomatic relationship with turkey. >> long said that it is in both the interests of israel and

turkey to restore normal relations between two countries that have historically had good ties. it broke down as a consequence of the flotilla incidents. we asked about why this rupture has to be amended. they don't have to agree on everything for them to come around a whole range of common interests and common concerns. during my visit in appeared that the timing was good for that conversation to take place. i discussed it with prime minister benjamin netanyahu and both of us agreed to, and fortunately they were able to begin the process of rebuilding

normal relations between two important countries in the region. this is a work in progress. it is just beginning. there will still be significant disagreements between turkey and israel not just on the palestinian question but on a range of different issues. they also have a whole range of shared interests and they both happen to be extraordinarily strong partners and friends of ours so it is in the interests of the united states that they begin this process of getting their relationship back in order and i'm glad to see this happening. >> you can watch the rest of the president's news conference on our web site c-span.org, where you will find video from of the events we cover and live streaming of the c-span networks. >> the most striking difference between what is happening today and what happened a hundred years ago tacomas of the parade.

100 years ago the parade was a parade so much as a riot. police refused to protect the marchers so as they progress down the parade route the crowd got larger and larger, they were very unruly, they had been drinking and started to throw things at the women, they shouted things, told them to go home and not just that but street cars continued to end the people into the already packed crowd and so the crowd got larger and larger and more aggressive so the women couldn't go forward. the police weren't involved. and to push back the unduly crowd so that the women could continue their peaceful exercise of their first amendment rights. whereas today, wonderful, peaceful assembly and a celebration. >> this weekend on american history tv a look at the