nd democrats alike to come together in tackling the challenge. we came together unanimously and can do it again. .. the evidence for climate warming with industrial pollution as a principle cause is now overwhelming. also evident and casual

inspection is the rapid disappearance of tropical forests and grass lands and other habitats where most of the diversity of life exists. with these global changes going onto say, we are needlessly turning the goals we have inherited from forebearers into straw. for that we will be despised by our descendents california has the most far reaching environmental laws of any state, and the most integrated policy to deal with climate change of any political jurisdiction in the western hemisphere under the law that's you have enacted we are on track to meet our 20/20 goal of a third of our electricity from a renewable resource. we will lead the nation in efficency, cleaner cars and energy storage recently, both the secretary-general and the united nations and the president of the world bank made clear that

properly pricing carbon is a key strategy california's cap and trade system fashioned under ab-32 is doing just that showing how the market itself can generate the invasion that's we need beyond this california's agreements with other states and nations so we will not stand alone in advancing climate objectives. efforts impressive though they are, are not enough the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change backed up by the vast majority of the world scientists has set an ambitious goal of warming to 2 degrees celsius by the year 2050 through drastic reductions of greenhouse gases. we have any chance at all of achieving that california as it is done in many areas must show the way we must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatable with an abundant economy in this.

so far we have been able to do that. in fact, we are well on the way to meeting our ab-32 goal of reducing carbon pollution and limiting the emission of heat trapping gases to 431 million tons by 20/20 but now it is time to establish our next set of objectives for 2030 and beyond and toward that end i propose free ambitious goals to be accomplished within the next 15 years first, increase from 1/3 to other %. our electricity derived from a renewable resource [applause] 2, and even more difficult reduce the day's petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50% three, double the efficency of the existing buildings and make heating

fuels cleaner. we must also reduce the relen less release of methane, black carbon and other potent pollute ants across the industries. and manage green lands. forests and wet lands so that they can store carbon. all of this is a very tall order and it means that we continue to transform our electrical grid. transportation system and our community i envision a wide range of initiatives more distributed power. expand rooftop solar microgrids and energy imbalance market, battery storage the full integration of the information technology and electrical distribution and millions of electric and low carbon vehicles how we achieve these goals and at what pace pace what pace will take great thought and imagination mix with the pragmatic caution it. will require enormous invasion and research and investment. and we will need active

collaboration in every stage where scientists engineers, entrepreneurs and businesses at all levels. taking significant amount of carbon out of our economy without harming the vibrancy is exactly the sort of challenge of which california excells. this is exciting. it is bold it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any chance of stopping potentially catastrophic changes to our climate system [applause] california since the beginning has under taken big tasks in entertaining big ideas fitting the state of dreamers builders and immigrants, we have not hesitated to a tempt what has been called impoll or fool issuing in the last four years and the last 40 years, yes, ever since 1779

along the kings highway, california has met adversity with faith and courage we have had setbacks and failures always in the end, the indomitable spiritist california has triumphed and through it. good times and bad, california has been blessed with the historic trajectory that will carry each generation forward whether the explorers came from gold or for god, came they d the rest is history. the founding of the missions the devastation of the native people the discovery of gold the coming of the 49ers . transcontinental railroad and the founding of great universities the planting and harvesting of the vast fields oil production movies. the aircraft industry. the first freeways. the state water project. aerospace silicon valley and endless new companies and nobel prize winners [applause]

this is california. we are sons and daughters yes california feeds on change and great untakings and the path of wisdom counsels us to ground ourselves and nurture carefully all that we have started. we must still build on rock and not sand. when the storms come our house stands we are in across roads with big and important new programs now launched and the budget carefully balanced the challenge is to build from the future not steal from it. to live within our means and to keep california ever golden and creative as our and still

not getting anywhere something has to give. i am looking at the overall comingizations that you have been having for the last 34 months and i think that the congress and the government is so huge that what can they do when they go in there today? i tell you they could be like the leader that's they should have been the leaders that i was raised around and the men that looked over at the communities that they lived in and said these are our children these are our young men and these are our adults what can we do in a realistic way to make this a better place to live you know. i would endure anything that

would yield the idea of wisdom in front of the faces of us who are having to work and fay pay for it you know. we live in a pretty good life here let's take what you got the tunity to do and do something right and quit playing games with you know. what you think you are going to value in life that you are going to have to give away one day my question to the 114th congress that is going to do nothing for the american people. i can't understand how is it that a congressman has become good people until they are elected. they go to washington and the lies, the propaganda and it is it just seems to be disturbing to me that it seems like everything president obama does is wrong and it -- it is sad to me. i am a pastor. i hear people coming on and your colleague came on and said that he was a christian well jesus said that if you do this to the

least of the them they have done it to me. and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 2 02-626-34 0 0. e-mail us comments@c span.org. or send us a tweet. @cspan@comments like us on facebook. follow us on twitter in september harvard university's institute of politics in the internet association hosted a conference on internet policy and it included a panel of executives from google yahoo! facebook yelp tripadvisor and ebay along with federal and local government professionals. topics covered include consumer privacy and government regulation of the internet this. is three hours well, good morning good morning i feel like we should vote on something but we are not

going to do that. my name is jonathan z-itran and on behalf of the harvard kennedy school of politics and center of society and the internet association, i am delighted to welcome everybody both here and in the virtual world because warning with he are live streaming right now we are live streaming at least as far as i know. i would give the ur. if you are on the live stream you know it. if you are here you don't need it and we are also being recorded for posterity. our good friends and neighbors at s -- cspan cable span will be putting this up against the friday night battle between the house of representatives subcommittee on veterans affairs and a briefing of the treasury department and i think we are looking pretty good so just be

aware. we are broadcasting we are located here in the malcon penalty house and fifth floor of the kennedy school named after john f.kennedy. and the institute of politics here has been from the start designed to inspire and to support the political aspirations and public service of young people something that president kennedy was also well-known for who can forget his speech after ask not what you can do for yourself but app what you can do for your country and how far seeing it is was to see the role of coding in the ecosystem for the future of the country and the world this morning, we will unfold as two panels i will be moderating the first one on quote will the government break the internet? the law of headlines says the answer to any question that the headline is no we

will have to investigate and then we will have at 11:00 the second panel moderated by nicko melee on why internet policy matters. so this is really a rare and special opportunity to gather the amazing group of people that we have around the table here today. we hope in the limited time to make the most of it and before we start our first panel, i am very pleased to turn the mic over to michael beckerman from the internet association michael? . >> thank you thank you jonathan. thank you to harvard institute of politics and bjerke man center photograph partnering for this important sip owes yum will the government agree with you? the answer is no the policy issues that we will talk about today with eco-reform. government surveillance. and internet government nancy and net neutrality are very important to the future of the internet and matteres to all of those internet users all over the world and important policy

issues as we get into the election psyche that will voters care about and certainly for all of the business that's care about. so we are looking forward to a great conversation. thank you for taking the time to moderate. pleasure all right so i am now going to take off the introducer's hat to put on the moderator's hat that means that i will get up and find away to get into the middle of the well so i can look at people [laughter] so this is where we need jeopardy music or something let's see if this will work all right. so hello, everybody. as you may have noticed to call this a panel is generous. this is a roundtable that has right angles and if i do my calculations right with approximately 25 people on the panel, and roughly 85 minutes to do it introductions alone would not be done before the time it is done. so we have a special configuration here. i want to use that to our advantage rather than

disadvantage this. is how i suggest that we do it first to bear in mind and to adopt the ideal as we proceed that we are speaking for' terity. don't forget c span is recording this so imagine the 20 years from now when people have jet packs and swedish philosopher nick bostrom's ai has taken over and the book spoiler alert that he came out with it doesn't look good for us but they will be looking back nostalgically at 2014 and maybe the names of the companies will have changed maybe the configuration of network has changed. and i urge as we discuss to think about what we would be saying to somebody in the future about the issue that's we are facing right now. i think that it will keep us at the right level of importance for what we want to say and also it will let us give you license to

explain a little bit an issue that is among the many people here that are in dealing with governments all of the time on this. that may be representing government. we have short hands for all sorts of things to be able to unpack the short hands so that there is a little bit of a translation available for others. i think that would be quite good that also means since we will not do intro ducks around the table when you first speak of up, please feel free to introduce yourself and do an extra beat. don't say i am from e! bay. say ebay that you may remember as whatever it is that ebay does [laughter] we will explain this. complexities of ebay when the time comes. electronic bay, i understand that to mean. or maybe not technically, the echo bay echo bay. it had been taken. url. we have laurened something where is echo bay today? . >> crushed

[laughter] super intelligence so the extra beat on the introduction and another guide line that i would give given this format is this is crazy of but often especially it seems to me in government affairs are points are usually three in number and i would like to adjust that to one [laughter] give or take. i guess if you have zero points that is not good. so how about just one figure on one thing with the lab relation and we will keep the conversation because there will be a conversation flowing rather than sort of there are three different reason force that. it reminds me of other things said 20 minuting a to make it harder to follow. does it sound good? yes and as michael hinted we have sort of the mclaughlin group esq the set of issue that's we will work through and i will not keep them hidden. we will talk a little bit about the liability. and surveillance both public

and private and about neutrality that appears to be in the news these days and about finally net government nancy and the thick eight of which there is no return so i hope to be able to touch and integrate across all of them. so let's jump in i want to think a little bit about the category of so-called intermediary liability that i understand to mean governments often directly regulate people and other times they realize don't regulate people regulate anybody or any institution in between the government and the people. and mandates there and then you will still affect regulation and possibly in the more subtle and powerful way. we have seen the examples of that and copy write infringement and defamation as the internet has grown from the early 9 0s and the american context we have seen some balance struck good or bad in what government may or may not require of the intermediary.

so i guess really, one example of that going over right now. is coming in from europe with the newly recognized right to be forgotten and adam where are you? here. i do not know why it did not occur to me adam ask you first to weigh in on the right to be forgotten but tell us what company you are from? and how is it going? sir, i am adam i lead the google u.s. public policy efforts and google is a search engine company that does a lot. it was a search engine company [laughter] and it did a lot of really great thing humble. humble. humble so um. the right to be forgotten is the interesting i think issue that i think is one of the things that i think a lot of us probably here in the u.s. would look at the ruling of this european court of justice and they

think that this is you know. outside of the bounds of certainly not something that would deem track here in the u.s. due to the first a menment and the strong liability principles but i think that it is important to acknowledge some of the feelings that motivate the desire for a right to be forgotten the fact is that there is more information about all of us online than ever before and that is true. a lot of the search costs for finding information that used to be hard to find have been obliterated. it used to be that you could fine information about a person's criminal record by going to the basement of city hall and the internet has obliterated that in a lot of positive ways but the fact is that people are concerned about the impact. i this i that one of the things that you know. concern necessary about the discussion of the right to be forgotten is that it has not been that balanced with some of the other competing values such as primarily the values of the free ex-pregnant and the benefit of the consumer right to

know particularly about things like you know. whether a vendor has had bad reviews against them or whether a potential baby-sitter had criminal things. this is something that people could request to be search results and that is something very anti-consumerism adam does this represent a shift in 2014 in thinking with google from a stance that used to say we indeck the internet. if you have a problem with that consult the internet to the stance that says there is a lot of tricky things to balance here . we may have kwbls with the privately activated process where a person is to come to google it will and fill out of a form and a link will go down between the person and the information. but this is a new reality and there is a lot more stuff online i think that the reality is and one of the reasons why the court

case in europe is has been heavily dissected in some ways it hinges on if google is more like a data processor that the court ruled that it is or whether it is more like a newspaper or journalistic organization which we are showing some kind of priority and reality is that google search results do both. indeck the web and there is a function of saying that we believe that the results are more important to the user than others last question on the mechanics of it, how is it going? give us the sense of the flow of coming in after the opinion came down. and are there plans to open it up voluntarily to the other citizens? . >> i have a small list in my pocket of things you know. we have received in the order of a 100,000 requests and we have the backlog of requests we have to go through these one by one. are there jobs that are posted for google right to be forgotten processors?

there aren't as far as i am aware unfortunately, some of cases that we have seen you know have been former politicians asking to have news of their criminal convictions removed these things are in our view not in the public interest. one the thing that we are monitoring is that there is some interest on the part of regulators and policymakers and places like latin america and asia in the european right to be forgotten and looking at that and saying is this something to consider? that concerns us obviously. and you are so far only limiting the right to where it is required of you to implement right. to european citizens and within our european domain only in european port holes of google right. european localized european versions of google that means if i am in britain and i am alert enough to say that i would like google.com i can perform a search? . >> that's right that is an area of contention too i imagine and are there other companies at the table that

are watching this very closely? if you are not a search engine is right to be forgotten implicating what you do either now or potentially in the future? remarkably quiet. this is a google and search engine-specific thing? wow! brad? i thought that i saw a hand go up. no. you didn't but [laughter] fair enough brad young and i am a senior council with tripadvisor which at one point in time the world's largest travel site and we focus on user reviews of hotel restaurants and a tracks around the world. at one point in time is not now [laughter] i understand that and it would be disingenuous to say that we are not watching with interest how everything

unfolds obviously we have looked at the european court of justice decision and we have seen how google has react today it much and also there is a you know a proposed directive before the eu that we do not know whether it will be enacted or not so what form it will take and if it is how each member count reef the e.u. will implement that directive and in our view and speaking just on be had an of tripadvisor the issue will raise more questions than answers i think it is who the data processor or falls into the news exemption and what is irrelevant. who will decide what is irrelevant the moment that google subject to appeal will google not end up allowing the intervention by the complaint? . >> right matters of public interest. right where is that line drien this is a politician is one thing. and b and b owner providing poor service to his paying customers and public. where will that fall on the

line there. is open questions that i think well so let me ask you show adam was saying look. this is 2014. and it is not a simple as it is the internet deal with it there are a lot of equities to be balanced. and there is plenty of to quibble with with a given mandate this. is the new reality is there a similar thing going on in the class of sites like tripadvisor? that affirmatively solicit reviews and the other information from the people that may make institutions i imagine that it will make or barak a hotel if it will get a certain ranking or a review. is it your view that this generally gets sorted out and tripadvisor's commitment to its users will have the right things happen? or are there ways of which you can go awry? um i this i that each individual platform probably has a definitely has a rule and ethos it is running

undid in a given time. the community expects to connect. they are always evolving for sure but there is a question -- i don't know what point in time you want the government to determine you know. tripadvisor those reviews are from three years ago they are irrelevant. and if somebody is take them down we got rid of the cockroaches and prior owners are in jail yep tripadvisor they should be cleansed. how do you what would you do that through a contact us forum trip advise there are certain situations where we will remove a large amount of reviews change of own or ship being the most common one and major rent vagus right. you put on three new wings and you bring in new management. and a different experience for the consumer. but, there are judgements. and we have made lines that work our user ands are the judgements made according to your conscience and what makes for a good business or is there a shadow of

government intervention if you should do that wrong? . >> no, not at all the lawyers are at the table he is is he sitting right here [laughter] those are made for what is best for the community right right. the larger the volume the more experiences that you are able to offer up to someone that is trying to figure out what to expect when they take their time off and spend hard money and take their kids somewhere the larger and the quantity is very helpful. so we have determined that there are certain things that you know you make the moves, you change ownership, blah, blah blah. at this point in time. they are irrelevant. and maybe they should be forgotten and we should start fresh. and in certain situations you put new linens on the beds we will leave all of the reviews up about the restaurant downstairs and the front desk that is not changing everything. got it: on a

map and a registry forever and the other hand you look at countries like france you know. and any crime should be sort of ex-punked from the record whether have you done your crime. they want people to have a clean slate. we have made judgements and we will need to make the judgements and legislatively. it is easier to do when the information and the question is in the hands of the government deciding when and how to release it. once it in a public domain of course it is harder to affect that genie into the bottle. your prediction. five to ten years from now. will there be an right to be forgotten recognized either legislatively or as a matter of customer service with the likes of google? . >> i do not think that there will be a right to be forgotten on the scale of the court improblemed but there will be miniature laws and other steps taken to

address particular types of information: >> >> against copyright

infringement claims so long as it expeditiously takes it down when asked. is that holding up well? did anybody ask about tweeting that received in america? [laughter] tell us where you are from. >> i am with each day. with internet commerce i do pavement's through pay paul and i have a small company called a stub of and it goes to your point that the communications decency act other than section 230 that

the internet had been broken. so the irony is a lot of it was meant to limit on the web to be the greatest proponent. so part of this is government acting in a way that the sponsors you could not have anything to around the world but as far as the pendulum you can start from a position to work to keep open as a basic principle then work back from there. >> is sounds like you say congress, i keep up the good work? [laughter] it is late in legislation.

>> in to be a visionary. [laughter] >> a and you can layer on the policies that in the company's judgment there are those that are prohibited? >> that is also from day number one that section 230 or 512 is the ability for companies to exercise judgment to get rid of things that they believe are in the consumer's interest. >> for example rolex watch is going up for sale and they had a small litter of kittens that you need to take it down and don't wait for us to ask is that settled now?

>> i would say the great copywriting and trademark wars are not settled because people can always pushed the envelope but for the vast majority of commerce it is a much better situation than it had been. in there is no reason to open that copyright act that they have adopted through lot or informally through common law or by statute or regulation. >> i am also with the company called the trip adviser that you can do on my reviews that we've promoted reagan a.

that it is to the business model from time to time it is under threat with the state attorneys general tried to claw back those restrictions. but it interrupted is a little more unsettled with the regularity with the rules there and it is a less friendly environment for the intermediary. >> nothing in particular you would ask of the government or nothing that you are fearing? >> internationally the big

is i say yes. >> that maybe i can ask you. tell us where you are from with the editorial committee i was in the house majority leader's office. >> say what that is. [laughter] >> it is sad day in and maisie resurgence for the golden age. >> and how much would that issue me on the radar weather for a campaigner policy making? >> is an issue fell whole tech policy is more or less

in as we have seen in the recent policy debates on the hill that there are issues for being unusual coalition and that is the benefit of the tech industry but for either political party as used to mount with those issues come a look at that constructs of the of roundtable to the future there is the inevitable shift of society to change their perspectives from the 40's and '50's to have a different view on things like search information that perhaps the baby boomer generation those digital

immigrants would be more concerned about those issues than those in the end. >> they are not? >> no. how do you do a live stream for the distance? >> got it. i will ask a question. we have someone from facebook at the table. here is a quick question. suppose we have some form of unrest about ferguson over the past few weeks and their posts on facebook about it. in facebook as an opportunity in the interest of public safety to subordinate the post if it says meet at the corner to

show our rage maybe facebook can say we will escalate the video of the cat? >> they may do that anyway. [laughter] >> let me eastern to joel kaplan. who responds on the record when i do not ask the question. >> i am just as shocking would suggest that. [laughter] i vice president u.s. public policy for facebook which was a small start up social the work with the gall to connect to the world and by hopefully 2024 we will achieve that. it is a great question is and it extends out to the liabilities that touches on

the broader issues not necessarily in the united states but that u.s. law is pretty good with other efforts but we do see efforts to hold the internet companies responsible for the content of the people who are posting it in one of the places that manifest itself is when the citizens are using the internet to communicate their dissatisfaction or the plans for meeting that could turn into unrest there you see governments are very conscious after is the arabs praying in 2011 and.

>> wilshire baseline feeling? is an analogous? >> the original view of the internet if you have the problem go to somebody else but it facebook says we has the secret sauce and we don't tweak it a and it does what it does. and bacon -- c cure conflating to issues with that now worth some in to if responsive to a government to crack down on dissent. >> talk about the first one first which is the absence of the government wanting to do anything in with facebook is supervisor could say there is a change of ownership freewill make cheese to the algorithm but

there is the acceptable use policy. >> that that algorithm determines is to show that in for blood dash individual what is most relevant that is constantly evolving taking a and a lot of factors. i don't view that facebook would you that it is its responsibility to determine what the people ought to see. >> going into my oath as a law professor that would be the fallout if there is a video from the islamic state that other users are subscribing that they want to see you then have reserved the right? >> how often do we show lot.

is the case that the spread has community standards his and into to chairman what can receive it on the site. we do have strict -- those that have a seafood content we call direct harm purpose of the is directly inciting violence that is precluded. >> what i hear you say is if it does not meet the standards it is not that it gets pushed down is just:. >> it violates community standards to incite violence then it will be precluded from being on our side to reinforce that that in most instances we do not go out

to police that we wait for one of our users to report. >> you would not use that the algorithm only block it or not. >> yes. >> got it. >> and now you talk about a worldwide phenomenon. >> we are a global service and we have to abide by the laws in which we operate. in addition to community standards basically we will respond to demands from government if they conform to the laws of that country. we will not typically take something off of the sites but we may blot kit in the jurisdiction of the area. >> not exactly analogous

with google and the european portals? >> we will see a message that says not available. >> one of the things we have done is to publish transparency reports the purpose of which is to share with the users the number of circumstances in which the government asks them to take something down the people they use the service understand the way their government insist that content is precluded to be seen. >> can i jump in? i work for the u.s. government. [laughter] i worked at the state department now as one year

ago then out of the white house. the president was elected 2008 but i have had this question in for a few years a and in dyewood called the great planet to be a nowise house and the issue develop once the eugenic companies started in someone who'd spent time with internet advocacy is said they have never seen before the headsets in this time restage but it occurred to me that the large but for those who have no idea where

it was before but it's the you could advocate for fox - - policy positions. >> yes. yes. yes. >> even though they say they'll is look to the customer first put to be on the receiving side it is remarkable to be to see that power the larger internet companies have. >> is there a question? >> as the people who make those decisions when they talk about transparency to we want to tell people to express their views? had to evaluate your responsibility with advocacy or do you steer clear? >> i felt we had someone

here? there on the second panel. a campaign manager from reddit. >> we representing internet companies and if you are watching in 2025 we're also doing strong policy. [laughter] that is interesting question because looks through the political lines with the issues and if you are a senator from a baedeker cultural state in you may not have facebook or google but all of europe is they just care about trip advisor

or google or facebook yet they care what happens and that is we will see for the other issues when they see a threat to the services to there using and the platform so she has a letter signed by of the company's or something and the president of the dominican dash and that has staged a whole place of cruel to divert to the users there and in the fee is there is incredible competition sarah is but just where they say you need to care about this but competition on the internet

of lake would never is interesting to use zoar responsive and a lot of them say. >> that up on that tried to sing'' is the next issue as you love be directly? is a government surveillance? touche he said is something that users care and though andrew lees though leaders eyes shining a light to nine different practices in but we have show leadership on. >> yes. >>, will just give the institutional perspective on

a capacity. i am with backlash vetted then new organization inside of the american foundation looking at building the next platforms for public problem solving for our work with congress. [laughter] here we go so it is not that awful. [laughter] is in old jalopy with the hood up trying to drive on the modern highway one thing i am and then to turn into a conversation. >> but what's would you ask?

>> that you invest in a new kind the the new kinds of knowledge programs to be enabled by a technology so which is not crowded searcy or show afs sarah face but for evidence we will of not having a legislature that makes policy based on the best knowledge available. >> to unpack that. the big data revolution is able to be used to produce evidence. if you mean by that things too big a headache in those

seven areas will get to the you see that half years hit are looked at a. >> on the last five years and was on the hill for 10 and we did not even have screens for basic technological level except a committee hearing so what if we created a web who hurts

your head to of the there is all kinds of ways to enable. >> if i put the word no into this sentence it will tell me about the change. >> is very important to say that right now because congress has a huge dated quality problem. para o moon mitt the of of any of it and if they said a committee chair will listen

but this community pisces answer the first half hour ahead but averages about their friends here in a and a second timid do you have a view if there is the way to have new. . .

i am curious, are they pretty much seized of the issue? >> right now it is in the forefront. the fundamental partnership. the companies fighting government surveillance want to do it themselves. google is saying it is our job, go away. yes, there are -- we need to get to the.where the users found -- want business models that don't have surveillance. doctor geltz surpasses search engine traffic. before that there is not policy.

>> policy trumps technology. >> let me ask healthier. tell us where you are from. given this sort of posture of the company you are working with how much do these issues of surveillance whether in relation to the government, trying to figure out what sort of requests they would make. [laughter] and maybe the corporate surveillance side and singularly striking. how much are you concerned about privacy in the commerce. >> so we are an online marketplace.

for us the government surveillance issue is not as you implied as much of an issue that we just don't have government knocking on our door that often, which is great. on the user privacy piece is an effort of building. is that creepy for me? it is important for us because we no we use the data we collect about our users in a way that they -- that would lose trust with our consumer base and they we will go somewhere else. we police ourselves, i guess >> i met a guy whose job was to taste bacon all day long.

you know, at some some.he would go, it is best before today. you know that policy. maybe i should put it out some of the other companies, a voluntary question before i call upon someone how broken if at all, is the model of data gathering and usage that in many ways drives the free internet may be less of the transactional internet, but the free information that someone has to pay for advertising has a storied history. is this model needing to be adjusted or is there something fundamentally

wrong with that. >> ultimately i would say at least at this.it is one in 14. i do not think that it is broken. i will put that out there. yelp yelp is a platform that connects people to local businesses. whether whether it be a restaurant or dry cleaner or ever you want to find out the best of whatever in your location go and look at other user views and content >> how does yelp make money? >> through advertising. we do it -- basically we get businesses to add packages. searching for a dry cleaner a restaurant. >> you have two lists.

which ratchet do everything we can to eliminate. at the same time that is how we make our revenue, through that manner. from from our sense it is not necessarily about collecting a ton of information about the user. in in essence it is simple to set up a yelp account. >> is the data you are collecting the targeting happens quite naturally. >> from our standpoint you want to be able to tell the business about who is going

there. it is a matter of how many people might be going to that page. >> the demographics you could give them. >> sure, things along those lines. generally speaking they have put out various metrics saying that the vast majority of users are college graduates most in the 25 to 50 range and make over x amount a year. generally speaking we have been able to show that within a week you are on a yelp because you want to buy something and spend money. metrics that we can take to business owners to say, here is why you should get advertising on our platform. >> let me ask you from the.of view of your company basically plus one or a difference.

>> thank you. good morning. i am the head of global public policy for aol which was and is an online media company that has reinvented itself many times and was and is a lot of things. we make we make our money primarily from advertising, and i would add to what was said we talk a lot about privacy. joel talked about transparency in terms of government requests. transparency transparency for users is the way that we get there trust. we try to make things easy to read, people options. >> the privacy policy. >> much shorter as of september 15. >> a provocative answer. [laughter] all of the fat has been removed. >> what we try to do is make it pretty clear.

i read through privacy policies, and we all try to do the same thing give people information about the type of data we collect and use. one thing that is it important consideration is the way we distinguish between personally identifiable information that says i am michael beckerman and live in washington dc and i am a user who lives in washington dc who searches golf equipment type thing. and we use the latter and an aggregate form. if i were a use personal to target michael beckerman for an ad based upon the millions of impressions that we need to serve advertisers it would not be a successful strategy. aggregating the information being talked about and user behavior is something that a

lot of companies around the table to but something we try to do in a reasonable way is give transparency to users and choices about whether or not they want to be targeted. data collection and targeting and there is always a balance between privacy. >> let me stop you their. it sounds enthusiastic, basically. let's see if we can make it a viral sensation. same idea. >> sure. we are a company that provides -- trying to meet user's daily habit weather, finance, sports, e-mail.

+1 absolutely to the comments already said the other thing you are starting to see a lot of an issue that most if not all companies around this table deal with everyday. if users do not trust us they are not going to continue to use our service. they are always trying to ensure that users will be comfortable. one of the things companies are doing is starting to not necessarily compete on privacy but she privacy as a way to differentiate product and talk to users about privacy more directly. one of the things you see a lot of his contextual privacy notices and trying to make sure that you are seeing what is happening. when you're interacting with an advertisement you will see privacy notices about the kind of data in forming

the advertisement, news that is specifically or sports teams on our sports website, your favorite football team, maybe the redskins there we will be away for you to understand why you are getting that information versus others. that is one area where you are seeing development and trying to make communication more clear. >> the.about competition. conducting that here as well to what extent if i am i am just the average internet user might something i am doing implicated something i see on aol? are there ways in which the information about the facilitated advertising is moving or it is basically

stovepipe? >> there are circumstances where the information is being used on other sites. that sort of mapping that happens is at least for yahoo always disclosed the partners we work with and have relationships. really advertising. handling relationships with third parties. >> do you see anything coming down the pike? is this pretty stable?

>> i don't think the jalopy is chasing us. it is being integrated. whether or not that will lead to legislation i'm not sure. but but the dialogue in the conversation and oversight is important and you are seeing companies work together. it is certainly an issue we are focused on.

>> we will see this change from posit as a person interface and living into what i call i call the pigpen world in which you as a person with your device carry around all your data and all around you seeking data about you and for you. >> what you are saying is the authority to release it may be much more interactive rather than a one time. somebody is wanting to no ask right now. >> i walk into a starbucks. they know who i am what i walk in. here is your coffee that you like, todd. it is already prepared for you. >> let's just check in with

at sea. no coffee for you. we will get over that. a lamp post a block away. >> they will say there is a starbucks right here. here. is it time for you have your starbucks? it will ask you at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon i want to search for a a location to go to are you going home? so i think we are moving whether delivery or not not, we we will all end up carrying our data all around us. [laughter] >> i agree. >> being chased by a jalopy.

>> something i would add it may be creepy, but i would love that if every time i walked i walked in my cup of coffee was ready and i did not have to wait in line. >> in the future people are just killing in and grabbing stuff. and i guess we can put an rfid chip on it. it just adds up your stuff. you could grab buckets of money at the base. click may want to try that.

quex's piece back to the generational shift and societal tolerance for those kinds of issues. the "washington post" said one. there were several others. by and large users get creeped out by that and deemphasize. >> you are suggesting that it is generational. getting people grabbing their coffees. >> as a society of old and young people get more used to things i do believe things like that make today sound creepy. >> we are talking a lot at this.about the melding of

physical infrastructure and the internet and walking down the street of the city. i cannot help but think of wanting to turn. tell us where you are from and tom us how much of your day today is about keeping the trains running on time on the desktops of the employees of the city versus thinking about what role the right be in public infrastructure to support the kind of vision. >> sure. the chief information officer for the city of austin, formerly a small colony of puritans. [laughter] now the hub of the regional economy. economy. so it is an interesting question and certainly much of my job consists of making sure the trains run computers work. we are often where the rubber meets the road with

julie on on some of the more innovative technologies being developed when it comes to transportation, lodging. we have very legitimate public policy interest at play. while we are less in the realm of privacy and intermediary liability we have to think about things like public safety liability and protection of landlords and individuals who are participating in these new and innovative services. the challenge the challenge we run into and the shift that is happening going from a place of in many municipalities being reflexive to technology to one where we actually have an obligation to try to

support the innovation economy, work with companies doing innovative things and find ways to meet public policy needs and objectives in a practical sense. there are not necessarily great models that address those challenges. struggling to work with companies that are stakeholders to make sure we are developing policies that are smart. getting internet available to everyone. how much would something like a net neutrality be something in which something like the city of boston would have a stake have a view on net neutrality.

>> boston does have a view on net neutrality. we looked at it from different angles. be able to thrive and have the internet. we look at it as a question of equity and ensuring our citizens have a rearview access to affordable broadband as being a court equity issue within our cities and something we have oversight into and how we think about policy. for us to make sure that when the citizen goes online whether accessing educational information working on -- looking for

job opportunities, trying to start a business they have the connectivity that they need to be able to do that. >> is there a hunger to produce municipal fiber? >> every resident of boston has access to affordable high-speed broadband internet. i i don't think we have figured out the right answer for that. certainly there is not a lot of great options for now. we are looking at ways to encourage. >> weigh in on the net neutrality front. >> i want to go back to the first question that you asked in regards to internet

and technology adoption. to take the general premise and flip it around the internet helps governments do their jobs better. talking about it earlier, but we have tremendous amounts of data that we continue to get on a daily basis. i think that one of the things that a lot of our companies do already is figure out ways to package data that can be helpful. >> various government instrumentalities. >> you can basically go on yelp and rate anything. >> how much are you worried? [laughter]

>> parking clerk's office is not faring so well. >> something that could be done. >> think anyone is going for a good time. it is certainly in terms of how we do service delivery thinking a lot about how we use data that we collect and more strategic ways how we use it to set targets, create accountability and transparency. we are interested in data sets and how we can interact with them in an effective way. more thinking about delivering good services and hold ourselves accountable.

>> professor at george washington university. in thinking about the question were government can break the internet, the answer is no. it is already broken and has been for quite some time. my computer and website is treated equally was true up until about 2,007. >> now amazon writes a check or builds its own delivery network. >> now the vast majority of web traffic never touches the public background. instead of having to go through the regional networks and up through the

main national fiber network sent back down and all the way back taking dozens of hops along the way when i request a video or do a search it is just a few hops instead of using the backbone as a direct fiber connection. the reason this is happening is because we are all very very sensitive to tiny slowdowns in latency. it is now the basic structure. so is this something of which policymakers should be seized. >> i think that they are concerned less about bandwidth, which is mostly what has been talked about and much more about latency.

there is the single best established fact about web traffic higher latency waiting at a fraction of a second longer between when you click that button in the page loads it is impossible to build an online audience without having a blazingly fast site. google has spent billions of dollars to be a quarter of a second faster. the the concern is not so much youtube or netflix. the concern is that if comcast is in a situation a situation of being able to force everyone else to pay for latency that is not just about google or netflix but every single site. >> we hear that. where do you park that concern? wake up. you need to do x, or is it something for which you want to invoke the industry? where do we take that

concern? >> it has to be a concern both in the corporate boardroom, federal communications commission, federal trade commission and the halls of congress. >> but they are all listening. what do you want them to do. >> the most important principle is making sure people and small carriers and especially small information content providers do not have to pay to have the same latency that amazon or google does. the kind of net neutrality regime but focused much more on latency than bandwidth so making sure that if i have my own upstart bookshop online that it runs roughly as fast as amazon. is there anything you would ask of the supernatural

entities, internet governance entities such as they are? >> i am not sure this is an issue, but it is something that should be paid attention to. because there is no competition for truly high-speed internet you really do have -- what comcast is explicitly trying to do is become a market the ability to say, well you know nice website shame if it ran half a second slower than everyone else's. >> the mafia metaphor. [laughter] we do not have one. but let me ask among the barons that have the billions to not have this be a problem are you guys

basically sitting pretty, or are you concerned about the future of the infrastructure that delivers bits between you and your customers? >> of course we are concerned about it. my guess is most companies around the table are concerned about it and have broadly taken the position that it is something that the fcc needs to address. i agree that latency is a huge issue particularly in the developed world where most people have access and now wanted as fast as possible. in other parts of the world it is not the issue. only one third has connection. the bigger connection is to

get to that first step, access, to get them online at all which is something we are focused on. >> how do you think through the quite natural possibility that when you get them online in the mode this is we will give you facebook, facebook wikipedia, a few other things that we curate. anything else let's wait until you can pay for it. how do you think through that form of a non- neutral network providing at no cost? how do you think through what that would look like back. >> that thing. >> about 85 percent of the people in the world live within wireless coverage but only about one third of the world's online. there is a huge delta that needs to be and can be

filled. it filled. it is not an infrastructure problem but an awareness problem. it is a cost problem. they just cannot afford data one of the things we have in cooperation with governments and other companies operators, websites figure out business models and ways to address both the awareness and cost issue by providing some free basic services. about a month ago and application was rolled out which provides a suite of basic services. yes, facebook is all there, but so is wikipedia and the number of maternal health organizations. >> the curated stuff i was referring to. >> and things that are extraordinarily important to get to people in that country. we will see how it works.

so far there is interest and a way to start addressing the access problem. we think that is a good thing. >> interesting to see. the path from no internet as a path ultimately maybe to a neutral matt. >> there are issues we are properly focused on in the united states and other areas that we will at some. be important. you have got to get them online and see the value of connection and connectivity. >> i am the last person on earth who will defend comcast. the greater part of the decade.

it is not a public resource. they are entitled to make money. they have to respond to the marketplace. i will voice a bigger concern. to have people not able to get to certain sites. out of the industry i am frightened about the implications. we spend a half-hour on privacy. no one mentioned the cable industry.

this new generation of set-top boxes are capable of obtaining and keeping and using all of this private information. >> yes, i mean, if you have a new generation set-top box they no every show you watched every second of the day. >> a a question there, many people would be saying television, cable what the hell is a set-top box or is it the name of the game for a company like comcast is ultimately specialized services for which broadband -- >> they make more money on it. the strength of the programming companies like my former company, espn. margins have gone down, but that that is how they started. the potential of what the

boxes can do, both good and bad something we need more discussion of. >> we are almost out of time. i time. i want to give the handful of people a moment to say something. together we have not spoken bring us and for landing. is there something we have missed or anything we have covered for which there is something vital you wish to add? >> i come at it from a news a news media perspective and echo some of matt's concerns. it remains the case that media organizations no matter how maligned they are provided huge amount of severity important information. i do fear that a lot -- in a

metered internet situation and non- neutrality situation that we could lose a great deal of that important information. >> is there anything that you would ask of government? subsidy, write us a check like the national endowment for journalism? >> you know, public spectrum for the public good. maybe a big media merger tax we have thrown around the idea of nonprofit fast planes or some version of that. >> c-span. latency on the agriculture committee. >> i really should not be saying this. >> the director of the media politics and public policy. a couple of things during the news today that bear on

this, the lawsuit against yelp and san francisco that charged effectively that yelp was shaking down advertisers and threatening them with lower rankings. >> ready to make an apology. >> that was totally thrown out. they said that they did not do it. the court the court said it does not matter whether you did it or not. you can do it. >> another panel coming up. we would never do that. something that would outlaw a privacy policy.

>> as i understand this decision basically that is the argument. >> a company can make it so that they are suable. >> just to be clear, from clear from yelp there has never been any amount of money that a business can pay. >> if i had a small tablet of wet cement and the stylist would yelp be willing to write in a way a way that the lawyers to make binding a commitment through 2025? >> it has always been our commitment. >> every day the farmer comes to the chicken and feeds it. >> get to the.of addressing whether or not. >> promising that it we will

resemble the past and that was. >> generally speaking most companies have an eight those they are founded on and follow. you know but it is something to consider. the beginning of the panel. when my kid rid of stuff, but we are not messing with the feed. a commitment of some kind in the future. those that those that might be interesting to think about to bridge the gap. >> even though they would not do it i am not accusing anyone they would argue for their right to do it because

they have first amendment rights. that is the way that they interpret them and is something that we will be a real issue. >> establishing a reputational take on something. it is a way of saying come at us public if we let you down even in ways which are not legally cognizant. >> that would be the theory. given the plethora of ways to look at this issue, the right to do what you want is an interesting question. >> thank you for that intervention. wonderful. let me turn to you. i just want to say a knew startup civic and political engagement. as you are aware save government.

the eyes of the world. >> thank you. [laughter] >> the total spirit of the startup is represented here as well. you are going to get the last words. >> i will preserve the balance of my time for subsequent session. >> everyone please join me in thanking all panels. [applause] we stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome back. i am on the faculty teaching my first class this

semester as soon as we wrap this up. i thought the title of this part of the program is called your next big start up idea. the goal is to get into discussion about what it means for newer companies and startups ways it can constrain and encourage newer companies entering the space. before we do that we had a compelling comment. he mentioned that the san francisco court judgment on throwing out the yelp case. >> and they are related.

the other one was from china the leading financial news organization has been charged with extorting money from prospective advertisers or clients are businesses in order to prevent or publish certain stories. in in other words the idea is that they were extorting money and cooking their report which is illegal. this is a funky kind of gray area because it is true news organizations all over the country have been seeking advertising. you may not extort, threatened the issue.

there are laws that put limits on what news organizations can do in terms of there own reports. the penalty defamation that does damage something you can make a claim about. as i understand the attitude about data and the information they gather there is an argument constantly being made effectively that they have first amendment rights to do what they want. it was a matter of saying, we're not going to do this but that is something that they reserve the right to say and there is as far as

i know no case law that we will put constraints on that however, if you are looking at yelp and google and other entities that are publishing after a fashion information that could potentially do damage and they are going to find themselves, i would think in the realm of libel i think the whole question really is where is the control of this vast amount of data going to reside? and i think that the web world will resist anything that puts constraints. i do not know whether that we will stick. >> two questions i open to the room.

one is about the goal of the first amendment and the issues around speech and regulation. many of the companies do operate essentially in the public sphere and there are considerations. the second is added at the end some concern about resistance to regulation in the industry. >> i don't know if that is the core problem. >> the not so enviable task of following. i will fall into the same rules. briefly at the beginning. >> it seems to me you are going about first amendment issues and legal issues.

the most disturbing thing expressing bias not lying about people but what you decide to cover and not to cover and could have a huge impact on businesses and individuals based upon whether or not he showed something online. one of the things i worry about is that facebook google, facebook google or any number of services could disadvantage groups. they could advantage accompanied by showing more data related to that company and less related to someone else. that is the kind of thing that i think is much more concerning. >> i i take your., but i think that the fact is that as these -- as the power of

these websites is consolidated and they grow unlike the boston globe where you can go somewhere else but if you are a business impacted financially by where you live in the advertising driven rankings and basically has the right to put you anywhere you want. that is not the way that they do business and there is not a viable alternative. this is an area i don't know they have been given them by the court. it is also true that they

are now clearly capable of doing significant financial damage. >> first amendment rights responsibilities and considerations. >> to an extent. , arbitrarily. second there are a lot of alternatives. traffic will traffic will go to the sites that are most useful to the user's or do other searches. i'm going to be in boston. productive in that kind of forum and people use other sites. >> the question of whether or not someone is publishing

something else but what the individual publishes publishers and whether it can be quantified and proved. if they are claiming first amendment protections than that goes with the territory as well and i wonder how it we will sort itself out. >> just introduced something. i sent you a reference. the first is i love the boston globe. i find it extraordinary that in the internet era the most important impact has been the democratization in the ability of individuals the towels i grew up in the globe and the "herald." now on the internet everyone

has a voice on facebook yahoo, any number of distribution mechanisms. facebook at least in its algorithm the most interesting and useful. if we fail people we will stop coming. the second.is relevant to the topic of startups this issue of liability protection for internet companies showing user generated content is the most single important protection. i think it is a great.you

brought up to start the conversation and you cannot overstate how important that is to the success of not just the companies around the table but the ones were thinking of how they we will reach their audience in the first place. if they we will be subject to lawsuit then they we will not be created or 60. >> i want to take that as an opportunity to shift our discussion. we are joined by a number of folks. i was in germany on monday. i woke up tuesday morning and discovered that it was now illegal. and looking at how that is played out in the united states it seems like it is happening on the basis of a municipality to municipality

different municipalities and states taking different approaches for regulatory perspective, and i am wondering about that in the context of if we should have a broader question. or is there some advantage to a piecemeal approach? this is an issue i think almost every company is facing. the public service very interested in your thoughts as well. >> a little closer. >> the german court ruled they did not have the proper permits to operate in the country.

since then sign up some gone up 550 percent. the upside is people vote with their wallets. we are hopeful for a good resolution. as far as whether one solution for an individualized solution, it depends upon the country. we have jurisdictions that we work well with good relations with some states. it is a good regulation something we work under. tough to get in there. it is just going to depend upon the jurisdiction. i think my colleagues that

run all over the country dealing with these a lot of times local governments from it comes to this it is something that they have traditionally dulworth. offering that kind of service. we ought to work with them to come up with a local solution. >> sure. hi. i would like to make an important. for the most part sharing economy companies are dealing with regulations that have absolutely nothing to do with the internet. air being the all of the regulatory issues have to do with the laws people who rent out their homes after

comply with which has nothing to do with the internet. it simply enable them to do that activity more people to do it more occasionally than ever before. land use in our case is regulated at the local level, and there is no way around that. land-use laws have good reasons to resist. they protect things that we rely on. so it makes it more complicated to advocate on behalf of our house but i would echo the perspective that we have to work collaboratively to figure it out and hopefully come up with solutions that might be applicable to thousands around the world. >> anyone else want to comment? >> i agree wholeheartedly.

as we have these patchwork regulations across the country we are dealing with laws written farm for anything like what we operate was even contemplated in some cases dating back to the 18 hundreds. but but we provide is the opportunity to move into a new generation. we come in work collaboratively collaboratively with cities, mayors, state legislatures, governors offices for the most part this is a localized issue. in order to help them how to address mobility. ..

it's very encouraging to hear the sharing economy companies around the table talk about collaboration with local government. i work for the city of austin and we're trying to craft appropriate regulations that both address the public policy needs we have as well as ensure these kinds kinds of new and inmotivatetive services can deliver benefits to citizens.