$2000 per year. so we are starting to see that creep up as well. >> host: julie appleby is a senior correspondent on kaiser health news. you can see her work or follow her on twitter at julie appleby.com. thank you so much. ..

senator richard blumenthal of connecticut who has introduced a bill on telephone cramming. senator blumenthal what is telephone cramming? >> guest: telephone cramming is the press presses of putting unauthorized third party on telephone bills. in other words charging consumers for supposed services that they never ordered and never received but sometimes don't notice and when they notice they have to pay. it is a practice that is literally costing consumers billions of dollars. there are legitimate third-party vendors and third-party charges on telephone bills but it is a little bit like having a credit card or using your telephone number as a credit card but the practice of cramming is literally cramming charges as you would on a credit card for unauthorized unordered services. >> host: can you give an example of who may be placing

those charges on a telephone bill or what kind of the charge it might be? >> guest: the charges can vary from supposed entertainment venues to services that may reported to be provided. any manner of service. the telephone numbers on landlines are available in phone book so anybody who supposedly is offering a service or more likely a fraudulent kind of operation can put a charge on the telephone bill if the company is willing to put those charges on the bill. this measure that i have offered would essentially prohibit those third-party vendors from having access to telephone numbers by forcing companies to stop it and only telephone related services or on services for example would

be allowed to be placed on the bill. >> host: so why did telephone companies allow these third parties number one access to a bill and to add charges to a bill? >> to facilitate these third party vendors because they wanted for the telephone company. they also feel it's something that consumers may want and in fact it's a convenience but it's also a great danger and consumers have no idea how they are imperiled by the easy access of the fraud and crammers and scammers through the telephone line. it's a little bit like saying i'm going to pay my bills by leaving a bunch of cash on the corner of 53rd and third avenue and you come pick it up. the cash may be there but it's unlikely. >> host: senator blumenthal is there an estimate of how much

this is costing american consumers? >> guest: the total that is charged through both authorized and unauthorized third-party charges is about $2 billion a year. over the past five years about 10 billion there are 300 alley and of them every year. how many are actually fraudulent? how many are crammed so to speak we don't know precisely that a substantisubstanti al enough margin and the danger is increasing exponentially that we feel this kind of band is absolutely necessary and profoundly significant. >> host: senator blumenthal serves on the commerce committee in the senate. prior to that he was attorney general and the state of connecticut. did you get complaints about this when you were attorney general? >> guest: very much so. and this has been around since the 1990s.

i was attorney general of connecticut for 20 years and we made a regular practice of going after crammers who were fraudsters and scammers and most often the telephone company cooperated that often pursuing these fraudsters after-the-fact provides inadequate remedies. they need to be stopped before they charges are made because afterward we can seek refunds that often they disappear in the telephone company may be unwilling or unable to find them or to make refunds. so the bill very importantly provides not only a refund but also penalties on the telephone company if it permits these unauthorized third-party charges. >> host: so senator blumenthal are legitimate companies participating in the so-called cramming? >> guest: not in cramming acus cramming by its definition is an unauthorized or unpermitted

call. there are legitimate third-party vendors and third-party charges but if somebody wants to use his or her telephone line as a credit card he might as well actually get a credit card because that is a much more secure and safe way of charging. that is why this kind of measures necessary, to prevent a practice that is so fraught with danger and peril to the consumer and so on scrutinized and little overseen by the telephone company that it is really important to ban it entirely. the cost of oversight scrutiny is so high that the telephone companies on their own have not been willing to do it. >> host: so why just landlines and not wireless? >> guest: that's an excellent question. wireless probably is the next frontier for these crammers to explore and that is why we are

investigating the possibility that cramming is actually taking place on wireless as well. we did an investigation or i should say -- did two years ago that disclosed dramatically the growing and pervasive amount of this kind of cramming, the unauthorized third party charges on landlines. but wireless offers the same kinds of opportunities and they need the same kind of protection. >> host: senator blumenthal's book is called the fair telephone billing act of 2013. where does it stand right now in the legislative process? >> guest: where it stands us in committee. the science entrance committee where i serve senator rockefeller is the chairman, is a leading sponsor of the bill. i am cosponsoring it along with senator klobuchar of minnesota and my hope is that we will get

a favorable -- on the committee. >> host: what's the argument against rebel? >> guest: the argument against the bill is inconvenience and a service but again it's so fraught with danger that it's a service that by its nature may lead to fraud open charging and that is why we want to prevent it. >> host: do you have republicrepublic an co-sponsors yet or a house bill? >> guest: we have no republican co-sponsors. >> host: senator richard blumenthal democrat of connecticut. we are talking about telephone cramming here on the committee caters. thank you, sir. >> guest: thank you. >> host: joining us on "the communicators" as representative jason chaffetz a republican from utah who serves on the judiciary and government reform committee's and he is here to talk about a couple of bills that he has introduced.

number one is the saving high-tech innovators from egregious legal disputes also known as the shield act. representative chaffetz what does this bill do and what does it address? >> guest: the ideas to make sure that technology can thrive in this country without these egregious and unwarranted lawsuits coming at people. patent reform is needed particularly those people who are trying to put forward -- just sue everybody particularly the small startup companies. look, there was a way through the courts to be able to pursue justice but if you have and act out there or you have a lawsuit out there that is totally unwarranted you are going to have to pay for that. it's a loser pays and is intended to make sure that we get rid of these unwanted attacks on patents that really just are justified. >> host: could you give an example of an attack on a patent? >> guest: well yeah.

for instance we at jcpenney, testify that they are the end-user rate particular piece of hardware and yet they were being sued for using this. again if there is a legitimate use out there hey go ahead and go to the courts but you are going to have to put up a bond. you're going to have to demonstrate you have the wherewithal to pay for the court cost if you lose because right now shell companies are being formed in order to do these lawsuits. they lose the shell company has no assets and again we just brought in the courts and there are literally tens and thousands of these lawsuits going out the door of the time. >> host: what is a patent troll? >> guest: i think it's an appropriate name. again there are very legitimate ways and reasons why this should be in court trying to dispute patents but these trolls have set up these shell organizations and just literally suing everybody they possibly can without any justification. i think this piece of

legislation would go a long way in protecting those and make sure we get the legitimate lawsuits funneling to the courts the way they should. >> host: specifically representative chaffetz what is your legislation due? >> guest: it creates this multipronged test that says if you are university or if you are the original inventor of the patent of course you can pursue these things but what you often have to somebody go in and acquiring the rights to this only to turn around and sue everyone they can possibly think of. a multipronged test in the key is setting up a bond so that if you do lose the case then you will have to pay for those court costs which is in the case now. >> host: what is the financial impact estimated to be of this? >> guest: it's in the billions and billions of dollars. as i talk to high-tech startup companies from utah to new york this is one of the greatest impediments particularly for the small companies. the microsoft and oracle's in the googles of the world they

are being sued all the time but they have the financial wherewithal and the legal staff to take care of it. i'm not saying it's right that they have the wherewithal to do it. a lot of the startups that are just being destroyed because the patent troll will come in and threaten a lawsuit in said look you will have to spend a half-million dollars defending yourself or you can send us a check for $75,000. $75,000 that they maybe don't have that feels like extortion. we are trying to change that. it's much like what europe is doing and we want to be doing that in the united states. >> host: is this part of the downside of our free market system? >> guest: now. we want people to be able to pursue revenue through the courts. we are one the best in the world but this obviously needs changing. financial incentiveincentive s usually get the result you need. it's got wide bipartisan support and i look forward to its passage. >> host: finally on the shield

act i wanted to ask you is it different than the american defense sacked the legislation that went through a couple of years ago? >> guest: it is much more narrow in its scope because we are trying to get at the patent control issue. this is a two or three page bill. it's very short and narrow in its focus not just high-tech but patents in general and it's different than the bigger and broader patent reform reviewed a couple of years ago. >> host: where does it stand legislatively? >> guest: good bipartisan support. chairman goodlatte has been very supportive of the concept and these things take time. we have had some hearings which is a good step but the next step would be a markup and i hope we can do that sooner rather than later. >> host: is there senate bill yet? >> guest: i'm not sure about that. i have to check the status of the summit but right now we are focused on the house. >> host: another piece of

legislation you have introduced the gps that does have companion legislation. what does this legislation due? >> guest: geolocatigeolocati on is a useful tool for all americans if they choose to use it. what i'm worried about not only the law enforcement component that individuaindividua ls who are surreptitiously following somebody triangulating somebody in following somebody either on their phone or other card for mobile device. you should be able to have their own privacy. i think americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy and should not have to give up all of those rights because they choose to use one of these mobile devices. the gps access in order to follow somebody in order to access their geolocation information you would have to have probable cause warrant. that would be true for law enforcement but also an individual. right now for an individual wanted to follow somebody in st. louis and they happen to be in phoenix they could do it. it's not against the law. you can go to radioshack and get

a smart 17-year-old who can figure out how to do this. that seems wrong to us and should be against the law. >> host: supporters include the electronic sounds -- frontier foundation and the aclu. representative chaffetz what is law enforcement's response to your gps at? >> guest: i think one of the things we need to look at is the obama administration's approach to this. there was a very important supreme court ruling called the jones case in which the court 9-0 ruled that by law enforcement using this hockey puck sized gps device they could not follow somebody. it was a violation of their fourth amendment but justice alito indicated in his writings that congress is going to have to look at this and how pervasive gps is in a broader sense and we are really going to have to get in and look at where

those lines? lines? where do you give up their liberties? where is their security and so it's a very important thing. it really does affect every single american. >> host: on the three committees that represented chaffetz serves homeland security and oversight and government reform he is involved in such committees on national security terrorism and counterterrorism. does interest in the gps after similar legislation been heightened by what's going on with the nsa? >> guest: absolutely. we have broad bipartisan sub port on this. senator wyden has been a champion a good strong democrat. over in the house chairman conyers former chairman of the judiciary and jim sensenbrenner have been supportive of this act. trey gowdy a former prosecutor so i think we have good support on both sides of the aisle and i think the more parents and people become acutely aware that this gps type of device can be very helpful in your day-to-day

life but it can also be a tool and a conduit for somebody who has got some nefarious thoughts and ideas to follow somebody without their knowledge. that really should be against the law and law enforcement really should have to demonstrate to the court to have probable cause in order to follow someone without their knowledge. >> host: do you hear from constituents on this issue? >> guest: absolutely. certainly with the nsa revelations of people being acutely aware and concerned about what the government is doing. are they following them? the obama administration has not verified their position posts jones in how they are going to do with this. there is a freedom of information act request that the aclu put in the department of justice. every single page was redacted. we don't know if they have administrations position on this is. i question the fbi director. he said he wouldn't talk about it at that point. i think that ought to be concerning to people.

>> host: congressman jason chaffetz is a republican from utah. you are watching "the communicators." joining us on the communicators as representative zoe lofgren democrat from california who represents several of the technology companies interdistrict. i want to talk to her about some pieces of legislation that she is working on and i want to start with a topic that seems to be gaining a little bit of steam and that cell phone unlocking. what are you working on? >> guest: i have a cell phone unlocking bill that amends section 501 of the copyright act that allows weirdly enough the registrar of copyrights to control technology relative to alleged copyright. i think most americans were really surprised when the library decided that they couldn't unlock the cell phone that they owned without going to

their carrier. that's really doesn't respect property rights and in fact there is no copyright involved. it's just a way for monopolies to exert their monopoly control after somebody has purchased a piece of equipment. if they want to enforce their contract there are plenty of ways to do that. they can sue. they can even if they want to they could break the phone if they wanted to do that but you can't keep people from unlocking their phones. my bill is the most expansive effort. it allows for third parties to provide software to do it lawfully. it's just an absurd situation that we have. it's been absurd for a long time but it was brought to the attention of the american public. >> host: how hard are the

verizon's and at&t's fighting? >> guest: they were witnesses and i thought their testimony was pretty lame on this study. they couldn't come up with a really good reason why. the president has mentioned that this is inappropriate and has gone to the fcc. i don't know if they really have jurisdiction but i think most americans would consider the current situation to be ridiculous and therefore it's a good incentive for the congress to act. >> host: are you finding bipartisan support? >> guest: yes, we are. >> host: i also wanted to talk about a tax issue. wireless tax fairness act. >> guest: well it turns out that localities and states are taxing wireless cell phone access like the phone purchases themselves in a disproportionate way. in fact i guess it's an easy thing to do because they are

taxing these plans as if they were syntax's. it's kind of tobacco like and what we have said as a congressman as a country is that we did not want to disproportionately burdened access to the internet. the internet fairness tax that had huge bipartisan support, when you think about where we are in 2013 in and 2014 coming up, how do people get access to the internet especially people who are less affluent? is through their cell phones and digital devices so we have a moratorium on disproportionate taxes on cell phone access and again we have bipartisan support on that. i'm hopeful that we in the middle of all of this happening can come together to do something sensible like that. >> host: as we are getting close to the end of the first session of the 113th congress

do you see potential action on these bills? >> guest: well i hope so. or example the cell phone bill passed the house last congress by a huge margin and we have over 200 co-sponsors of the bill now. you would think that if you get close to the majority of the house cosponsoring a bill you might have time to actually bring it up. >> host: now they don't make it through this session do you have to reintroduce that? >> guest: it's good for the entire congress so i'm hopeful that we will get action. >> host: what is the status and what's its status? >> guest: at the electronic privacy communication act adopted in 1986. where were we digitally in 1986? a long ways from where we are today and it's really no longer a -- it no longer fits our digital world. i will give you an example. most people when they use e-mail

think that their communications are private. that is why we have passwords. that is why we guard our accounts. if you have an e-mail that has been in your inbox for more than 180 days you can get it without a warrant just with a subpoena. most people don't realize that. it's a ridiculous situation and the things you say are the things that mean a lot to you. the things that you delete our spam so the spam has protection but the wonderful e-mail from your daughter that you saved has none. so that these to be changed. there's really no protection in cloud computing from a privacy point of view. that's not only important to users but it's also an important business issue. if you are a u.s. company offering cloud computing and you

go to europe and say you know any police agency with a subpoena you think you're going to be a will to sell your services in germany to competitors? i don't think so. >> host: has the fuhrer of the nsa of revelations died in congress? >> guest: i don't think it has. we have a classified briefing in the judiciary committee this week and i'm obviously not allowed to discuss what went on but i will just say this. i went into the hearing with a lot of concerns and at the end of the hearing i had more concerns than i did at the beginning. so i think there will be additional inquiries. obviously we want to be safe is a country but i don't think our safety needs to be at the expense of our constitution. >> host: representative lofgren when it comes to internet and telecom negations issues how does the judiciary

committee ssu? >> guest: it's very helpful because as you know intellectual property is the purview of the judiciary committee and there is such a connection now between ip law and freedom of the internet. you know we constantly see ip content owners wanting to encroach on internet freedom in an effort to protect their rights. obviously they do have rights but so do users of the internet. i think also increasingly we are going to find it need to examine old assumptions. the nsa issue has brought this to the forefront. there are common doctrines under constitutional law, plain sight. there's no expectation of privacy if you are in plain view. okay that's fine if you are walking down the street. how does that work in the digital world where as you walk down the street your picture is taken by every store, every atm

machine and all of those would be compiled in facial recognition technology can be utilized to identify where you are every moment of every day. is that the expectation? i don't think so. i think we are going to have a need and i think this will be bipartisan to say how do these old doctrines actually work in a digital environment? the technology has changed everything. >> host: something that technology companies are very interested in is in the grecian reform. with everything going on in congress in washington is immigration reform dead? >> guest: i don't think immigration reform is dead. i worked on this every single day. i think we have viable ways forward. the question is will the republicans permit a vote? if we get a top to bottom reform measure on the floor for a vote it would pass. so the real question is what

would the republican leadership due? will they allow the congress to vote or not? i hope they do but i can't make them. >> host: representative zoe lofgren a democrat from california joins us on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. a. >> we are at the louvre henry hoover house on the campus of stanford university. it's significant because this was the primary residence of the hoover's and it's significant as it relates to lead hoover because she was the one who designed it. she had such a strong grasp of design and how she wanted the house to look even though she was not an architect. we are lucky to have a lot of the original documents and correspondence relating to the design and construction of how she wanted the house to look. lou henry's interest came from her travel pueblo architecture

and her travels in north africa when she traveled with herbert hoover. it's a great legacy of lou henry's because she designed the house and she created it. it was inspired by her ideas and she had very close involvement in all aspects of the houses creation. >> niagara is a reconstruction of a ship built in 1812 actually the winter of 1813 for the battle of late gary and it was built to contest control of the lake with the rest of the squadron and ships that were built here.

the ship incorporates timbres from big -- they are not structural or loadbearing. they are a frame between the pieces and they are symbolic presence of the original ship. what is original about the ship is the way of sales. they're breaking in the working of the sales and the work that the crew has to do is very much what they had to do in 1813. we teach history and we teach people in appreciation of the war of 1812 and the maritime history of the great lakes but really most of the learning that takes place on board is about functioning as members of the team in the ship's company. it's the seamanship that they're learning that i think is of real value now because it's a place where you can continue certain traditions and certain attitudes and abilities that will be with

us for centuries and we perpetuate them and keep that going. >> i thought wow that's the answer. if there were more women in politics and more run across public life and more women in power around the world and things would change. i called my editor and she basically said okay. >> all of us in the working class are subjected to punitive taxes being ignored by the elite media, not getting any kind of special interest help in washington like the fat-cats get. we are i