today is just the beginning. we're going to keep at this for you, the young people of america, for your generation and for all the generations to come. so, thank you. god bless you. god bless all of you. god bless america. [applause] >> "the communicators" is next with memberss discussing issue related to cable, net neutrality and spectrum. and then a talk with vint cerf and europe's trade negotiator talks about ongoing trade between the european union and the united states.

>> and this week on "the communicators" we talk to members of congress about the legislation they are proposing. first up senator al franken. senator senator al franken, you hailed a failure of the comcast-time warner merger as a win for consumers. why? >> guest: because i firmly believe if comcast were allowed to buy time warner they would have been to go big anti-competitive, led to higher prices for consumers, less choice and if it is even possible they would surface. >> host: is it because of the size?

>> guest: the size and parts of different markets. they have 30% of cable between them and 57% of internet broadband, high-speed internet broadband, that is just too big. i had a lot of content providers, networks come to me and say they were opposed to this deal but this gives you some idea of what happens when you get this big, they were afraid to say so to be public because they feared retrobution. >> host: did comcast come to you and try to influence your opinion >> guest: they did not. i have been against comcast-universal purchase and acquisition for some of the same reasons. this was much worth as far as i was concerned. but they knew i wasn't going to

favor those and they didn't try. i was opposed to this from the beginning. >> host: has the fact that charter communication is snitching around time warner is that something you would also oppose? >> guest: that is something i would look at. this was a whole different magnitude. comcast is the largest cable tv provider largest internet provider who would be buying the largest cable tv provider and third largest internet provider. from the outset it was too big and i think the deal ultimately collapsed of its own weight. >> host: what about direct tv and at&t is that something you have an opinion on? >> guest: i am unsure about it but i have been so focused on this one because this one i knew but when it started 15 months

ago, i think most people thought it was a slate of coming clean, but i didn't. i think i am happy and proud of my role. >> host: you are probably happy with the net neutrality and the opinion put down boy the fcc. >> guest: i fought very hard for that. net neutrality has been the architecture of the internet from the beginning. the fcc has been trying to establish net neutrality rules of the road and have actually had the isp's in the past go to court against them and the circuit court in washington, d.c. ruled against the fcc. and the circuit court was saying they had to envoke title two and basically say -- invoke -- the

internet was a utility. they did that. and what focused everyone's attention is when tom wheeler, the fcc chair put out proposed rules that called for the antipethis of net neutrality which is fast lanes that you could pay for if you were deep pocketed company and everyone else on a slower lane. net neutrality is treating everyone openly and allowing everything to flow at the same rate. this got people mobilized and i was very much opposed to what chairman wheeler was proposing then and had been an advocate for net neutrality then and was

for years. this got over four million comments from the american people which is more than twice the fcc has received on any other issue. i think over time chairman wheeler saw the light and what was at stake and came down firmly for net neutrality. that was a very good outcome as far as i was concerned. i think in a way comcast-time warner cable played into that. there were about a million comments from the fcc on this i believe. and when you are talking about a company getting 57% of all high-speed internet i think that bodes ill for net neutrality in the future. if you think about the power of that and the fcc's composition

may change so i think that was becoming part of the issue as well. >> host: really a big grassroots push to promote net neutrality. >> guest: yes. this wasn't just small businesses and startups and individuals. this was big business coming out against this. ups, bank of america, and others. because every business in america uses the internet. so any manufacturer putting the specifications over the internet and everybody -- the internet is used by everybody all of the time. the only people that benefit from the fast lane full lane would be really the isp. and that would be passed on again to consumers who would end

up paying more because those who bought the fast lane would pass that cost on to you. >> host: it is said your neighbor, john thune is preparing fred upton legislation to overturn the fcc's rulemaking in this area. is this going to extend the uncertainty for years? >> guest: i just think this will be very very hard to overturn and turn this back. but we have to be vigilant. there is no question about that. but i have had colleagues that don't understand what the issue is here. i have heard members of the house get on the floor and say things like i don't know why we need net neutrality look at all of the innovation we have had without it. and you don't have to know

anything to get on the floor. that is not a rule. >> host: and finally -- >> guest: you can say whatever you want. >> host: and finally you are the ranking member of the privacy committee. i want to get your thoughts on the issue of privacy on the internet and on potential reenactment of the patriot act. >> guest: well in terms of the surveillance for example, nsa survilance i supported transparency. i think there is a balance you have to strike -- surveillance -- and that is hard to strike between privacy and national security. i think everyone recognizes that. i voted against those programs that snowden revealed the 2/15 and the 702.

i am only saying those numbers because this is c-span. so i am guessing the few people watching know what i am talking about. and i voted against them because there wasn't transparency and i think americans should have the right to know what is happening so they can make a judgment as to whether that balance is being struck. dean heller republican of nevada and i offered the transparency getting 58 votes in the senate. i hope we go forward again. we need something in place to make sure we are not backed down but in a way to protect privacy. my committee, i was the first chair of the privacy technology and the subcommittee and

judiciary, flake is now the majority, but this is about technology keeps accelerating and we have to think about that. the founding fathers never for example conceived there would be the telephone and at some point somebody had to decide whether wire tapping of phone was a violation of the fourth amendment. and it was decided it was. and we now have technologies that are just you know, head spinning. there was one named an app called i think name tag that was facial recognition and they wanted to put on google glass to walk around and look at people and it would identify them and connect to their dating website. so i wrote a letter as chairman

of the committee and said don't do that. and they are not doing that. but there is all -- this is going to keep accelerating and there are a lot of privacy issues. your location is being taken all of the time with your smart phone or can be. i think americans have a right to privacy and that includes who is taking your location information and i think you should be able to opt-in if is fine with you but if not i don't think your location information should be taken. >> host: do you see bipartisan support from a that? >> guest: yes there is bipartisan support. i had a bill pass two congresss ago in the judiciary committee, it wasn't taken up on the floor so i will pursue that especially

on stalking apps which is something that is an issue in terms of domestic violence and slipping into your smart phone an abusive partner may slip that on their partner's phone and always be able to know where they are and that is dangerous, it has been dangerous, and led to pretty ugly stuff including murder. and police and law enforcement is now understanding that and so we will be addressing that hopefully in this congress. >> senator al franken, democrat democratic senator from minnesota. >> guest: thank you. >> host: we caught up with house judiciary chair bob goodlatte to talk about the legislation. bob goodlatte is good here at ces on the hill. when you think about the committee, why were you down

here? what are you looking at? >> guest: well technology is something that is very important to all of us americans. and this committee plays a role in advance vancing technology. we are working on a bill to combat patent control. we are also working on something important for technology companies dealing with people's privacy and protection of civil liberties and that is legislation dealing with the nsa and the fisa court -- the foreign intelligence surveillance court dealing with the revelation about the gathering of telephone meta data. this bill passed the house with a big bipartisan vote in the last congress and will be brought up again bans meta data collection and storage by the

government. but still protects your national security but increases our civil liberties protection. they are very interested in issues like making sure brilliant young people educated at america's universities coming from around the world are able to stay here work for good companies, create businesses and create jobs for more manys. so lots of issues that are important to the tech sector of the economy. >> host: you were talking with google and soft com. google as an issue in europe they are facing. will our judiciary committee have input? >> guest: we are communicated with key people in europe to say in the united states our anti-trust laws focus on protecting the consumer not other businesses. we are very fearful the european may be envious and are trying to

use their antitrust laws to disadvantage the companies. one example is google told they could not do certain things with their search saying we will not offer that in spain. so for two weeks in spain you could not use can spain and then officials heard the people wanted it and they backed away from it. they serve a good purpose but that is to promote competition not to distort competition and favor domestic companies for reasons that don't benefit the consumer. >> host: and finally, now the net neutrality rules have been published in the federal register, is the committee going to follow up with hearings on hat? >> guest: we had a hearing a couple weeks ago with the

chairman, chairman wheeler and commissioner pie and some of the commissioners from the federal trade commission because our position there is also very strong. you can protect the openness of the internet a better way by having competition protected by antitrust laws. that is the historic way we have done it. having the fcc serve the authority of the federal trade commission is a very bad idea. it will lead to regulation of the internet in ways that some of the people who have been calling for that have not imagined. the internet has grown and become important in everyone's lives because of government regulation and because it has been free of that regulation. using an industrial age regulatory scheme used to regulate the bell telephone company of you know half a century ago, to regulate the

internet? that doesn't fit. that doesn't work. that is what they are trying to do and we are opposed it. it will be tide tied up in litigation but we should be acting to work on. there have been bills introduced under the congressional review act which is a way to stop an agencies by taking action with a vote in the house and senate to disapprove what the agency is doing. that is one avenue. there is issues related to funding and you can limit the group with the power of the purse. i believe our antitrust laws are good but if they need to be tweaked to make sure a small business can fuel the protection of the antitrust laws we should look at that. what we should not do is have an fcc get their nose under the tent of the internet and begin regulating it the way they are.

>> host: bob goodlatte, commissioner chair, frequent guest on "the communicators." and finally, doris matsui is here representing the sacramento area. we talked about spectrum and net neutrality with her. now joining us on "the communicators" is representative doris matsui a democrat from california. representative matsui you are cochair of the spectrum group. what do you do? >> guest: we felt that spectrum is a vital resource in the country and a lot of people don't understand how spectrum is used. it is such a finite resource and powers everything we understand as far as ipads and phones and everything else. it is necessary to under this is what powers the economy. it is something that is important and the oxygen of the digital economy whether you are

measuring your heart beat your heating in your home, whether you are doing like in california where we have to thing about water efficiency and things like that you need spectrum for all of that. we felt it was important for the rest of congress to understand this water resource. it is our -- i like to say it is our invisible infrastructure so to speak. people don't understand without it we would not be where we are today. >> host: how would you like to see it controlled? >> guest: spectrum is out there and we need to harness it in a way it is there. we have to locate from that section, too. people who watch the program will understand this. we have a successful auction

that played for the first net and we have public safety. at the beginning of the auction, people believed that we would not pay for that. we are looking at the fact it is something that is so critical and we need other options. this is the base everyone looked at saying we cannot believe this happened. they are looking at this saying there is an opportunity here. legally more people and broadcasters are participating

in that auction. it is helpful we had the successful aw-3 auction. in order to do that auction, we had to work with the department of defense. the pentagon has since in essence controlled that spectrum. as you know with the pentagon, they can say for security reasons we cannot move off this or share. we developed a relationship with a bipartisan effort. we developed this relationship with the pentagon the generals and everyone else so that we understood where they were coming from and the process took three month and they understood how critical it was.

the broadcasters were helpful because they got into it and helped us work with the pentagon. that is the nature of what we do and that is the part a lot of people have difficulty with.

the internet should be free and there shouldn't be people getting faster access. when that occurred that whole energy that happened with that with chairman wheeler because of the overturning of the open internet order when he had to have a new proposal out there, there might be paid prior to that. four million comments is unheard of. to me and most of the people it demonstrated that people in this country have this feeling about the internet and free expression and so obviously chairman and

the fcc came up with another solution which in essence balances out what broadband should be for everyone; free access and banning paid priorties and banning fast internet lanes for come people and giving enough authority to the fcc so they can do things like broadband and also to insure we might be able to have ability to have other companies doing things in cities and areas so you are not dependent upon a big carrier to do that. there is competition in that. it is an area that i am very passionate about and literally net neutrality whether it is spectrum it is the future. a lot of people know about it.

and lots of people don't. and as i said it is an invisible infrastructure and important as roads and highways. it will get us to places. even in this day and age it might even be more important. >> host: what do you say to the companies and startups back home in the sacramento area that have competed without net neutrality being regulated by title four? >> guest: you would be surprised at what they are thinking. i had a hearing in sacramento and last year in september, you know, we never had a hearing in sacramento or maybe down south or silicone valley, at the state capital. i had two commissioners coming out and i wrote them. i had a commissioner also on the

witness stand i had a library on the stand and it was incredible. my voters came out to the hearing and many times they don't come. but they came out because the word went out. and these were you know people who were entrepreneurs just getting started and really did understand about the care whether it was title two. they wanted to insure they got the access they needed and didn't have to be prioritized. this is something where it is participation from the ground up. i was thrilled with that. and the policy makers in my state also took notice of that, too. it is really to me very, very

encouraging to chair with young people who want to be creative. the strome stream liner is a woman and she said if we didn't have net neutrality, if we had paid priortization she would not get this off the ground. it is one of these things where the young people creative people innovators totally get it. that was very thrilling and it gives me hope what we need to do the for future. >> host: federal government still controls quite a bit of spectrum and you have legislation in the pipeline. >> guest: absolutely. it is a federal spectrum act and it is important because what happened with dod is we realized

it was together and we are thinking there are other agencies why don't we incent them. and my co-chair helped on this. what it does is whenever we go and they identify particular parts of the spectrum to go to auction on it and incentives are given and they will get a percentage. you think about the fact they got $45 billion i think that is a great incentive. there was a percentage that wasn't close to that. as we go down and there is a bipartisan support here i believe we will work with some of the incentives there. it is something that interested a lot of people.

republican and democrat to support the commissioners. and a lot of obviously industry. a lot of the federal government agencies are looking at this too. they want to get involved in this. and if they see that we could do it with department of defense surely we can with the other groups. >> host: "the communicators" airs every week saturday at 6:30 and monday at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. cspan.org/commune cspan.org/commune

cspan.org/commune. >> on the next washington journal, shane of the national journal and linda discuss the latest developments of the 2016 race. and robert bixby looks at the house and senate budget which the house passed last week and the senate is supposed to debate this week. washington journal is live at 7 a.m. on tuesday on c-span. a handy guide the 114th congress with photo colors bio, and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps, a fold out map of capital hill. and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span

online store at c-span's website. vint cerf is known as a co-founder of the internet and talked at the national press club about the future of the world wide wep and ways to enhance the security. he is a chief evangelist at google as well and uses that role to build relationships within the community and encourage standards for online applications. this is an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. my name is john hughes. i am an editor for bloomberg first word and i am the president of the national press club. we are the world's leading organization for journalist. we are committed to our

profession's future through programs like this and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information about the club visit our website press.org and to donate to programs offered through the club's institute visit press.org/institute. on behalf of our members worldwide i want to welcome people in the audience to today's news maker lunch maker and welcome c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the #mpclunch. remember the public attends our lunches. applause is not evidence of a lack of journalistic object

objectivity. our head table includes guest of our speaker ge working journalist who are club members. let me introduce them to you. i will ask each person to stand briefly. from the audience's right, tender mccarter retired public relation director for iee, jacky caseal, former presidential innovation fellow at the whitehouse, fema and gsa, bill yarn vice president of business development at the diplomatic courier, pam harbor technology free lancer and chair of the national press club free lance committee, john f. kennedy jonathan fischer, senior editor at slate, susan mar, vis president of relations at

google. ally ally allyson fitzgerald, board of governors and member of the national press club. skipping the speaker. lori russer manager director and speaker's committee organizer who organized today's lunch and technology reporter for the "washington post," and tom risen, technology reporter for u.s. news and world report wane rash washington bureau chief for e-week joshua higgins, technology reporter for inside washington publishers. [applause] a little more than 40 years ago the first international conference on communication gathered in the basement of the washington

hilton attendees witnessed the demonstration of technology that enabled advances technologies to run between the computers here in washington and others around the country. harper net, a network created by the advance research policy was the earlier version of the internet. one of those involved in the demonstration today is today's speaker. since 1972 vint cerf developed the architecture of the internet and ushered the continued spread of the web and is one of the most widely respected people on the internet. many call him the father of the internet. since 2005 he served as the chief internet evangelist for google and he took that title

because they would not approve the title of arch duke. dr. cerf is edge educated on the value of internet warning it might be a black hole if we don't preserve documents which is hard since we don't know how computers will function. if you want to make sure important information survives for prosperity his suggestion now is print it out. his current project is the interplanetary internet he is work on with massive jet pro propulsion. his list is as you can imagine quite lengthlyy.

if you want to learn more about it you would have to look them up on the internet. >> google it! >> please give a welcome to google's chief evangelist vint cerf. [applause] >> well, first of all thank you very much. this is number 208 which reads if you feed them they will come. i will not use any presentation charts. my motto is power corrupts and power point corrupts. i want to tell you an antidote i think is relevant to this. i worked on mci mail in the '80 turned on on september 27th, 1983. among the first people to sign' for the electronic mail was

reporters and one was william f buckley and i maintained talk with bill before he passed away. i remember i had come and gone to mci and left to join other companies and rejoined mci to help them get into the internet business. in 2003 it was clear charging people for e-mail was not a great model. so we shutdown the mci mail service and got angry e-mails from reporters who said i had the address since 1983 how can you do this? but the answer is it was time to go. i have two thing do is address and i will drop into geek. then i will talk about policy. i have eight points on the tech side and four or five on the

rule side. i am proud of the fact the internet is continuing to evolve. this has adapted to new technology and developed in with capability and become important parts of the smart phones and world wide web are reinforcing. one thing i didn't get right was the amount of numerical space needed in the internet. when we designed it 40 years ago we did calculations and estimated 4.2 billion terminations ought to be enough. so the version of the internet you are using is version four designed around that time. we got it wrong and ran out of the version four in 2011. the ceo of america's registry for internet numbers is there,

john kern, so if you need ip addresses he is the one to talk to. i am proud to serve on the chairman of the board. we need one that has 128 bits of e-mail. 3.4 times 10 to the 38 addresses. this is a number only congress can appreciate. but it is absolutely vital we get all of the isp's to turn this on. the software sin your laptop and desktop and in the routeers and the internet service providers turn it on in parallel with the ip version four service many of you are using. as individuals talk to urisp and demand an answer when i i am getting the ip-6 address. i want dates and times. as reporter we can do the same thing but with the mega phone afforded by the fourth amendment. why do i care about the

addresses? the next wave of stuff is the internet of things. but every appliance you can imagine is shifting from electrico controls to programable controls. once you but a computer inside of anything there is an opportunity to be on the net. the good thing about the internet is everything is connected. the bad thing about is internet is everything is connected. we need the address space to accommodate this explosion of devices. cisco said there may be 50 million devices by 2020 and every light bulb could have their own ip dress. some do like the light bulbs by phillips called hue. we need to get this implement.

the second is buffer bloat which is the label. when you are watching steaming videos have you noticed they get jerky and things slow down and you sit there waiting for things to reload? it turns out it isn't true having more memory space is always a good thing. let me explain. you have a routeer -- router at home, maybe you bought and installed one or hired a geek to do that this thing has memory in it. imagine you are running a local network at home running at 100 mega bits per second but the connection you have out to the rest of world is not running that fast unless you are on a google fiber network. what happens?

the program you have running is pushing data into this buffer which is filling up and emptying slowly because the data rate on the other end is slower than pumping it in and there is increasing amounts of delay from the sender over here waiting to hear the acknowledgment coming back from the other end. the program inside your house is saying they didn't get what i sent and you keep resending it. it is counter intuitive but you have to design the system so it doesn't put too much buffer space in the path. only enough to deal with the difference from both sides. here is the code word for you: the letters that you want to refer to are called co-dedel-fq and

that is the technology you want in your routers so you are pounding on the table for the ip-6 you say i want codel-fq in my router and i want a pony. all of you are familiar with the fact we are bad at picking password and some of us still use password for a password. you are told to make complicated passwords with stuff and changing them and you can never remember them and make a list and stick them on your computer or put them in your wallet. at google, you will remember and some of you reported we were attacked in 2010 and penetrated. we decided to do something so you we have a piece of hardware

in addition to passwords called a gumby and don't ask me why. this is generating a random one-time password using a cryptic acting -- algorithm. when you log into account, it will do one of two things. if you have this device the light comes on and it sends the data back and forth. it sends you a random number to your mobile or you have an algorithm running that generates the number. all of these imply you needed this device or message coming from google with the latest one-time password in addition to the user name and password. it means if someone got your user name and password they cannot get in because they don't have the second factor.

we would like to encourage everyone to adopt that practice because that will make the network safer for you and for me. fourth point, security is and safety and privacy are really important. one way to achieve that is to use what is called https. was invented in 1989 and released as part of the world wide web. there is a secured version of this. and the purpose behind it is to encrypt the traffic between you, laptop, desktop, and the server on the other end, google in my case. the idea is everyone should be making use of this means of transmitting data back and forth. while you use the web-based application the information is kept in encrypted form and only decrypted when it reaches the other end. this is called encryption for transmission which leads me to the fifth point and that is

google and others believe all transmissions regardless of whether it is from your edge device to our services or data centers ought to be encrypted in order to protect privacy. so this is a very important technology which should be incorporated into normal use on the net. i don't have very much time so i will not tell you storiesf of working with the nsa to design and build a secured internet in 1975 but the details were classified at the time and i could not share it. i felt schizophrenic but now we have the technology it make a more private environment. we think it is important to encrypt data once it sin place. your laptops should be encrypted, and we will encrypt data moved back and forth between the centers and it is kept encrypted so if the data

center were penetrated your or you lost your laptop it would be hard to extract. seventh point is another deep thing. it is called dms stack. you know the domain name system because you use them all of the time. this as a security extension. how do i do this in a couple seconds. when you do a look up of a domain name you may not see that happening. but when you type www.google on the net 'looks it up in the in a big database. it gets back an ip numerical address. so these pieces of information are very important. what happens if somebody can go in and change the numeric address associated with the domain name. you may think you logged into bank of america but if someone

extracted the website they are taking your password and everything else. the solution is using the dignital signature. we can digitally sign the binding between the domain name and the ip address. when you get the pair back you can check did anybody change the binding or alter the numerical part. and checking the digital signature you can verify hasn't been modified. this identifies spooking attacks that that would otherwise be of harm. we think it should be implemented. it is being implemented throughout the domain name system but we need more and more as it goes down. you will love this bcp-38 what the hell is that? this is best communication practices number 38. basically, what this says is that if you are operating a

network and you are going to accept traffic from people that will eventually be sent out to the rest of the address, you should check if the numerical address is coming from a legitimate source. is it coming from the network that owns that address space? this basically says don't look traffic in the net with fake source addresses. it is possible to fake the address by stating this is coming from that place over there even though it is coming from over there. we don't want people to do that and think the isp's should be executing this. you can tell i have a strong message and ask you to amplify it is time to get on the stick to improve the safety and privacy of the net.

now we switch to policy. they told me they would tell me this thing is going to die. i have 19 minutes left? eight things in seven minutes. i hope some of you are reading about and writing about. rather than having an agency taking responsibility for this when the i-cam was created that was the intent. there was supposed to be a

period where everything settled down and then they would let go of responsibility of any further direct interaction. it has been some years since 1988. and ncia has proposed to do that. it asked them how to show they would operate without the benefit of the oversight. there is controversy over this but i am a strong believer the government should step away from this special responsibility or authority and return this to the community. i would like to add one more and that is freedom from harm.

unless people feel save using the internet they will not use it and then some company's business models may be undermined. it is important in addition to the freedom of expression and assem assembly that be do everything we can to protect people from harm and that is why i am talking about other things. point number three has to do with non-discrimination and in particular none of the isp's or the broadband providers should have anything to say about where the traffic is coming from and going. everyone should have equal access to the net. you should have the ability to go anywhere you want on the net and in principle do whatever you want. if it turns out to be illegal that is a different drama. none of the providers of access to the system should tell you what you can and can't do. that is a non-discrimination element showing up in the net neutrality borders that came from the fcc. preserving user choice is

fundamental to the internet's utility. the fourth item on the policy list is equal access to performance features. if you need high band width because you are streaming video you should have access to that. it should be openly available to everyone. i didn't say free, but everyone should have equal access. and finally, i think it is important we encourage not only here in the united states but everywhere around the world the adoption of policies that would encourage the creation of more internet. here is my problem, at google my job is to get more internet bills around the world and talking to erick smit the other day he said you cannot retire. i said why not and he said you are only half down you have three billion people up and another four billion to go.

i could use help in case any of you are interested. we need countries to realize the benefit of internet for their citizens. i will stop there, mr. chairman and turn the chair over to you to ask grilling questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. the internet was created by the u.s. defense advance research projects agencies or darpa. now it is global. no one owns the internet. is it possible this will work? >> first of all, darpa did sponsor this initially. the answer is absolutely yes.

we turned the internet on on january 1st 1983. 32 years. now who do you suppose was actually running it at that point? it wasn't the defense department. i left and was at mci at the time. my colleagues were parts of universities and in the private sector running and building and operating pieces of the internet. it has been the private sector's role to build and upoperate. the national science foundation and nsf -- they don't run it anymore. they started in 1986 and shutdown in 1995 not needing any more because of commercial services available. the private sector and civil society and technical community

and academic community and governments all have a responsibility including you to be part of the policy making apparatus for the internet. the things you do to protect your own safety and security and privacy affect me too. if you don't do a good job you become an avenue which attacks can be made and fishing attacks occur and access to things that should not be accessed by their own parties will happen. we all have a shared responsibility to make policy decisions about the internet. the enforcement of policy could be the responsibility of specific organizations and individuals in the light. but the policymaking thing should be multi staple and that has been working and it can continue to work if you let it. ...

>> >> and dad is a risk

potentially for you. cd internet we all have a role to play to make it more secure a and save. there are different places in the architecture where it is a very laird system sold mechanisms my workout one layer may have no effective and other. suppose somebody said the solution to e-mail is reshooting crypt everything progress long as we do that everything will be okay. analyze this a little bit. the source of the e-mail of the laptop which has become infected somehow. maybe they went to a website or u.s. be so this computer and doesn't know it's affected composes a bill that has malware that we in

cryptic. great than nobody can see anything. then it does this not solve the problem. so it is everybody's responsibility but each layer and provider has a responsibility with the application space and we're doing everything we can with the attacks with the layers of architecture that also need to contribute. >> to use social and credit history to verify of the golden age.

what does an identification and verified look like? >> the short answer is yes. would you like me to elaborate? [laughter] so first of all, social security numbers are not intended to be a defiers used in commerce but they are. or the last four digits which is almost worse. second they don't check the digits it is just nine digits we can do a lot better. and a certificate that identifies the key so this is a weird thing it is late

the door with two keys one locks the door but does not allow it. so you have these two different cryptographic key is that work together to create security. from the authority that would identify those issues that could be a state government does anybody know a correct the answer? does the state issues of social security number the federal government? 8q. so the federal government does bin with the signature somebody could send you a challenge.

only i can decrypt it. then i could send it to the party so each of us has a credential issued by the federal government that has the public and private key associated with it. it is more comprehensive than that but that is the essence if we could agree on the international basis that has to be shown before these credentials then we might be able to make a digital signature as assorted as the wet signature is today. with these digital signatures a of certificates

also against abuse of social security numbers. >> in addition to printing or photos where should we be doing to preserve information for our culture for future generations. >> i really didn't say print everything but those who were in the business of printing photographs decided that is what i said. [laughter] you can blame them. printed photography has gotten different from all the stuff you see. here is the problem every single day you create complex files the file that you created is pretty complex and in order to correct the and render or allow those documents to be edited you need a piece of

software. now imagine it is the year 2158 you were doris kerns good friends great great granddaughter a eddy want to write about the beginnings of the 21st century. the dialog see a very plausible with the words that reuse made it seem like to be a fly although all going to 100 different libraries and use that to reproduce the dialogue. nonet you order great great granddaughter trying to read about the 21st century and you cannot find a daily thing because all e-mail has evaporated or worse discs

full lowe's ditz that represent the e-mail but the application program in the operating system that iran on a and a the harder don't work anymore. nobody supported them you have a pile of rocks and bits i want to prevent that. they're only a few ways but the best way that i have seen so far it has been developed a virtual machine capability to allow him to emulate hardware of almost any kind then run the operating system on that machine then run that application on the emulated system.

he showed 20 different emulations of different operating systems and show we 1997 turbo tax running on the of mcintosh including the crappy graphic it was phenomenal. so the ability to preserve software and emulate the hardware is the best to answer so far this is not a trivial technical problem also intellectual property issues what rights can i get? when somebody says you cannot do that because they did not pay? it is 150 years since you did anything with that software. give me a break remember when sealock -- xerox was

created librarians said they could copy of limited amounts but they would say no. but it didn't happen and the ability to employ a fair use was important we data preservation associated with copyrights so not only sanctioned but encouraged to survive over long periods of time. >> 1979 urging you to have of braintrust that could not continue your work who is your brain trust today? is there enough technical expertise or even with technology experts for those to kraft a policy? is that braintrust being consulted like it should?

>> the answer is no to the last part but the first part is the original group that i created with the internet configuration control board we've made at as boring as possible for those lead researchers so they would morphin to the internet activities board when it became part of the internet society with that task force all of which are housed with the internet society is the braintrust where the bulk of the protocols are coming from this is various corporate entities for protocols but it still comes

from the braintrust i was in washington since 1976 it is a privilege and responsibility to help policymakers understand enough to make some sense i am looking for simple cartoon models sunday will reach those policies in the last thing we want is the policy that a bid is the law of gravity so our job is to be helpful to help clear expurgate -- explanation how works and the worst thing in the world those that cannot

be implemented. >> would take over the past two decades what are the one or two developments of the internet you are most pleased or most disappointed ? >> starting with the last one span is a disappointment and i am very proud of them to do a very good job if you look at this base am told there is amazing how much stuff you did not have to look at. so it is the annoying side effect so for those who don't have to pay for what they do so if it is not enforceable is annoying but

what i was most astonished by if we go down the alleys of you have kids you might have learned what i learned is don't take too much credit when they do well when they screw up you don't have to do too much blame. proud is the word that i use for the internet. however with regard to surprises nobody really noticed the when the mosaic browser showed up this was absolutely astonishing because it had imagery and color and eye opening but on top of that if you want to

see how the well-paid church was built it has the html everybody could cop the everybodies web pages so the web master it was enhanced that of the betty could share all their web pages so what astonished me was the amount of content from when html was available it is astonishing how much information and people wanted to share their information was useful to someone else nonsense information in sharing is power and we will see that

over the next 20 years as well. so what i like the most if it is a scalable 1 million times bigger with too many protocols aided has invited creativity you don't have to get permission from every isp in the world to put it up on the net day and it should stay that way. >> you are said to have been in candidate for u.s. chief technology officer but of larger question is whoof you consider moving to the government side to sort out these issues in the ec role if offered? >> this is the hypothetical.

there were news reports i was on the list but i don't know. i consulted with my friends and he said why don't you just the the chief technology officers best friend? so now make is there i thought that was pretty good if i decided sellers six years in the government. i enjoyed that time it was up period where i worked with incredibly smart people but my whole career has been that way. i met google is surrounded by incredibly smart people more smarter than i am. i hear that every day. then i think we tried that 25 years ago than i remember

the reason why it didn't work that reason may no longer be valid now is cheaper and faster now is economically feasible i have been forced to rethink my own view is over and over nothing makes you rethink your old -- our own position so i don't feel the need to become a part of the government but i want to have the opportunity to provide support in and help if i can and i will do that. >> iana to see congress pass the u.s. a freedom act? vs loss enforcement's desire for the back door with the cell phone? what should congress do? >> first of all, the back door id it is indicative of the real tension with a

global system to be used in the views like a lot of technology there is nothing about that that determines agues says some people would use that so we have to do something at if we wish you protect the citizens of our country and others from harm in this network so ask yourself how can i do that? and the tension is if you use cryptography which i assure everyone of you cares about what can they do? it is reminiscent the report to don in the '90s i was adamantly against the clipper chip idea and the reason was simple if you have a back door somebody

will find and it could be a bad guy who will intentionally abused their access. so that technology is super risky. at the same time i except the government wants to protect citizens from harm. how do you do that? there is the spectrum so imagine rehab a society with no privacy everything is known it might be a very safe society but maybe not one the you want to live but what if there is absolute privacy and bad stuff happens to you feel your privacy is protected but safety is diminished there must be someplace for every one not the same place every culture or the nation but figure out where is the

balance. congress is forced to struggle with that with privacy and confidentiality of the other item not persuaded that building the back door is the right way. >> the way the fcc that neutrality rules are written to the offer equal opportunity download speeds while avoiding government overreach with content regulation. >> this is day interesting problem i think tom did not have a lot of choice. the fcc had asserted a cassette of neutrality rules intended to protect user choice. is essentially they were told by the supreme court you don't have the legal

basis to reinforce network neutrality preferences so we either had three possibilities in one was do not think that that notion to the extent they agreed there helpful or useful would simply not succeed because of the of enforcement the second is to get the congress to create a new title specific to internet. some of you remember there was every index decision that cable and telephone company said we're not regulated in the same ways. this is correct the yet they both provided internet service they say it is different ground rules it is not fare so what possibility

might have been to get congress to adopt that internet title that was the appropriate. the choice was to treat the internet as if it is the information in service with no layer structure or telecommunications component of story but that is unregulated so the sec was removed but tom chose a third path to and folk title to which the sec had the authority in my view to decide it is really title to but constraint significantly so now under this rule they have a basis for taking action however there is a

potential forward-looking risk so if they decide to invoke the complex system for voice communication which is of far cry from tomorrow's internet at some point this tactic has to be redressed so if we do anything at all in the reagan stowe -- revelatory space it needs to be tailored to add new products and services we should not constrain the network simply in order to regulate but to make sure it treats you fairly with adequate opportunity but at the same time allows the sec to protect your interest.

that is where my head is and i hope you think i've managed choose straddle this reasonably well. >> i imagine we fight for press freedom worldwide imparted your job is to evangelize the internet what can you to shake that loose? >> i wish i could say get over it everybody picks on china but they are an example i do have some sympathy for the chinese government there are 650 million chinese on the internet right now. so this means the private sector that was investing in the enormous amount building

infrastructure they were very early on into that space so they made this big announcement at the same time they come from a long history of practices so they are scared of this large population of people becoming unhappy. i am told the last seven times there was of major regime change it was preceded by a rebellion looking of conditions i didn't appreciate that the moves are scary for in the administration even if they try to do the right thing to make the fed and housed. so those that seek authoritarian control over the internet will discover

if they do that they shoot themselves in the foot of the inhibit the creativity of the population which is what they need but to inhibit their ability to explore world markets the global economy is bigger than it you or don't cut yourself off the state message needs to get to the europeans at the same time next family preventing themselves from participating to let the global market participate. dash said economic to invest in the internet to allow your creative population to make use no country has a corner on creativity it is equally distributed they

just don't have the upper with all to explore those ideas how many come from india to the silicon valley or seattle to reduce spectacularly well? it is just that they didn't have the investment infrastructure or the willingness to take risk we know there are smart people out there if of rules could be made similar to what they are in the united states. >> we're almost out of time before i ask the last question i would like to remind about upcoming speakers for the first woman to lead to the air force academy will address a luncheon on friday. the ceo of american and delta -- united airlines

will appear together. [laughter] >> one opportunity. >> and addressing the press club on may 22nd double presenter guest with the greatest gift of all the national press club mug the you can treasure for decades [applause] so the final question else sounds like it caved in over the internet you have fewer than 5,000 followers on twitter anti-war not verified what is left with that? [laughter] >> i don't tweet that much. i have better things to do.

and i get more than enough as it is i don't need any more. with i don't know what you have to do to get verified? send your blood type? and i remember asking the guy he didn't think that was funny. [laughter] . .

i -- the prize is called the turner award named an alan turner. many will know that prize is $1 million fundses by google. and we're proud to offer that through acm after year. i did get that prize along with bob kahn, and 2004. so i feel more than adequately compensated. it wasn't a million dollars back then and the aren't doing it retroactively. i asked, but that didn't work.

so, it is -- it's a coveted and very high recognition of contribution to the computer science community. i think that's more than enough. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'd also like to thank national press club staff for organizing today's event and remember, if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, go to our web site, that's press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> former arkansas governor and fox news talk show host, mike huckabee is expected to announce tomorrow he is running for president in 2016. he'll officially launch his campaign at an event in his home town of hope, arkansas. that's live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. and later in the day our road to the white house coverage continues with democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. she'll be part of a roundtable discussion on immigration policy at a high school in las vegas. that's live at 5:45 eastern on c-span. >> remarkable partnerships, iconic women their stories in first ladies, the book.

>> she did save the portrait of washington, which is one of the thing that endeared her to the entire nation. >> whoever would kind out where she was staying what she looked like who she was seeing, that would help sell papers. >> the takes over a radio station and starts running it. how do you do that? she did it. >> she exerted enormous influence because she would move a mountain to make sure her husband was protected. >> first ladies, now a book, published by public affairs. looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series. learn about their lives ambitions, families, and uneck partnerships with their presidential spouses. first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women fill with lively stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house sometimes at a great personal cost, off

changing history. c-span's first ladies is an illuminate can entertaining and inspiring read, now available as a hard cover or an ebook through your favorite book store or online book seller. in just moments a look at european trade policy with europe's trade commissioner. that's followed by former national intelligence director john negro negro at the talk -- negroponte, talk about the issues and the winner of the c-span student competition. >> europe's trade commissioner was in washington dc today. she talked about ongoing negotiations over the transthattic trade and investment partnership between the european union and the u.s. she also spoke about the current debate in congress over whether to grant president obama

authority to negotiate international trade deals. it's just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. i am am scott miller, sender adviser here and aim pleased you could giant us for this morning's state statements forum. identity like to also welcome our online audience. we're webcasting this event live and the digital video and audio will be available at csis.org following the event. you can also follow is on twitter at hash tag csysy live. tonight's round of negotiations with the transatlantic grade investment partnership concluded

in new york last week and as part of the commitment of our guest today and ambassador michael froman to meet following each round cecelia malmstrom european commissioner for trade is in washington dc. we welcome the commissioner to our forum this morning. dr. malmstrom became commissioner of trade for the european union in november 2014. prior to that she was commissioner honor home affairs has a long career in this field. most importantly in her early days she was an intern at csis, so this is a welcome back to csis for the commissioner. thank you again for joining us, and please help me welcome commissioner cecelia malmstrom. [applause]

>> thank you for this good morning, everybody. it's really nice to be here and it's especially nice to be at csis where as was said, i had an internship almost 20 yearsing. i think those ten weeks laid the ground for my interest in american politics. and it's really good to be back again, even if that was not the case recently, and this is even bigger. i am here indeed in washington for meetings with ambassador froman on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. we're going to -- after we finish here to assess where we are, and to make sure our negotiations are on track. it's the third time meet with mike froman this year. that is more often than i meet some of the members of my family. i hope that is not the case for him. and why do we do this? because we take these

negotiations seriously. we want to -- apart from the formal negotiationes want to make sure it has a political touch, that we regularly exchange viewpoints, that we take stock of where we are assessing the difficulties, the possibilities, and so economically and strategically important for the europe and the u.s. and that's why we keep on having this frequent meetings until the very end of the process. but we also know that on either side of the atlantic is the be-all-and end all of trade policy inch washington i understand the biggest buzz is about the trade across the pacific. and that makes good sense of course. the pacific region is an indies indispensable part of the world the, and the tpp has been negotiated for many years so we follow chris closely as well. and also in brussels, our trade strategy goes far beyond one

notion and one continent. it changes over time and right now at the beginning of this new commission that took office the first of november last year, we are operating on trade strategy to bring it in line with today's reality. so things you have a very deep and thorough discussion here in washington. maybe i thought could be interesting for you to hear about our discussions on trade. because we are now setting a new strategy and that is, of course not an easy task because strategizing means planning for a future that is unforeseeable by definition. so it's easy to give up and let you focus narrative the extreme decisions you have to make every day. in my country sweden, we used to say there are only two things taken for granted. taxes and death. for the rest you have to improvise. but improvising is a temptation that you should resist as well because, as the great american objects said, yogi berra if you don't know where you're going

you'll end up somewhere else. he was right witch can't predict the future but we have to plan for it. so how are we doing that for trade policy today? well we start -- we have been starting to see what worked already. we are looking closely at how the world has changed since we last did this five years and we're working to answer the questions of changes raise. we know that etrade policies helping to us to do to things, prosperity and protect and project europe's -- first prosperity. the eu is the world's largers exporter and those exports support over three million jobs. almost one in seven european workers owes his or her job to export to the rest of the world. but he benefits we get from export go beyond. our imports are part of the economic success story because

not only do consumers get cheaper goods and wider choice, it is more come -- competitive. two-thirds of thunder. importants of energy, raw materials and interneedat goods and those also support jobs in europe. we owe these economic ben fits to trade to the workers and entrepreneurs and open trade policy at home and abroad. of course european union itself with the 28 members is a large free-trade area, and for almost 70 years we have been pressing for greater openness to the world trade organization, wto and before that, and we continue to do so today. with our partners in wto with the u.s., and others. these efforts created a framework that underpin state open global economy and the benefits it delivers. we take those rules for granted

today, but thaw were essential to revent a return to protectionism after the double financial crisis and we have been can use bilateral negotiations to arrest more openness and opportunities for european people. last year we connected negotiation with canada, singapore, and ecuador. these agreements are very effective at opening marks. they remove barriers trades, goods, services and public procurement, tackle rules and regulations and tradition barrier, and they work in 2011, our agreement with south korea came into force and since then our total exports to korea are up 35% compared to the year before we launched the deal. the car industry, our experts are up with 90%. so we have evidence that our policy works. and is helping to create prosperity on the ground. but europeans as i guess americans, are demanding people

they want a trade policy that seize beyond economics. a tool to promote european values around the world values that we share with you. democracy, human rights, protection for the environment and equality, and we know this works, too. and let me give you a few examples. eu trade preferences helped to reduce global inequality. we are the world lazy largest importer of products from developing countries and that's because we have a good and big market of 500 million consumers. but it's also because we offer full duty and quota free access to market, to the world's poorest countries and because we are -- still very valuable trade preferences to all developing economies. we are also using a special trade preference scheme to strengthen labor rights and environmental protection. we have a prom, called jsp plus to give better access to the eu marks to vulnerable developing

countries if they sign up to international conventions everything from combating racial discrimination to biological diversity or corruption, and if they don't implement them they can lose that access. thirdly, we are seeking -- seeing some results of innovative tools like the compact with bangladesh on working conditions in clothes factories. this is a compact deal between us between you between the u.n. bangladesh government, tried unions and employers. and in two years frontal the terrible tragedy in bangladesh where over 1,200 people, women lost their lives we have seen some important improvements in the working conditions and workplace safety. there's still a very long way to go but pressure can -- through trade can bring change, and it must continue to do so. these are just three examples how trade can support values at the core of our identity.

i think we can be proud of those successes but they certainly room to do more. the world is constantly changing so we must change for it if we want to keep meeting our goals. and a few recent changes are particularly important for trade policy. of course, first the world economy has changed. the global economy is becoming more integrated through the value chain. emerging economies like china have continued to become more important, meaning that we need to find ways to connect to them economically. 90% of global growth will come from outside europe. so we need to engage with others. technological change meaned that trade is not only physical but it's increasingly electronic. digital communications are making new parts of the economy tradeable and creating whole new fields of business, too. into the vacation is not confined to the private sector. the last two years we have seen governments come up with new and creative types of trade

barriers and these include localization local content requirements disguised subsidies like export restrictions on energy and raw materials. and trade policy is changing, too much there's a now positive move in the world trade organization. the u.on union and in the united states are working together to support director jenna his evidents to improve -- this would bestromly important to reach an agreement by the end of the year, specially for the poorest countries of the worlds. the most dramatic trend in the world policy of trade is the proliferation of bilateral free trade agreements around the world. so it's not an option. that would put u.on exports to a huge disadvantage as others improve their access to markets. another change is the politics of trade in europe. it may not be obvious in washington but is there an

intense public debate around the ttp in europe. it's front pain daily basically all european papers and the equivalent in social media. it's a huge debate and many people are very concerned about it. the debate has shown that people are concerned about theth what shay see as possible impacts. public services, regulatory, investment arbitration environment, et cetera. men of those fears north justified aft all by facts bit they show that people feel distanced from politics, from trade policymaking, they want to be involved and this is something we need to address. so our challenge is to provide a broad response to this and other challenges. and we are doing that by asking questions about four groups of issues. first, how do we find a way to seek broader engagement and broader trust from the public? this has bun one of my priorities so far. we have put basically all

documents on the european side online so that everybody can see what we are negotiating and what we north negotiating. so we're looking at now how we can be more transparent across the rest of our agenda, and that is always we need to work very closely with eu member states and of course our european parliament. they represent our citizens are and essential for our work because in the end they need to give their consent to any trade agreement. second europe's trade policy must also have a broad conception of how to advance our values. trade cannot solve every problem of the world but can drive the right kind of change. how can we do more to strengthen human rights, labor rights snow. one idea is responsible supply chains. in addition to our initiative in bangladesh we're also working to address issues around raw materials sourced from conflict zones in the world. the question is whether to look at further ways to address these

issues by promoting the concept of fair trade more generally. first, our strategy muss be broad when it comes to hard economics. recent the scope of trade policy has expanded greatly there was tame when the main negotiation was about tariff, then trade agreements took a few weeks. this is not the case anymore. we have to continue to broaden this if we want to be effective need. to explore youth digital trade mobile of people who want to provide services and maintain goods already sold, and new disguised subsidize0. are strategy must look at how to move to deepen existing worlds in areas like energy and regulatory cooperation. regulatory issues are the core issues. can we find a way to make a different regulatory decision more compatible while making sure that regulations still protect people and consumers? and, fourth, even with limped resources, we need to keep up

the broad geographical scope of a trade agenda and make sure we deliver. the best way to tackle many cos the wto now. trade agenda need to look at the post bali agenda and we need to seek ways to use the energy in bilateral negotiations to drive the multilat -- multilateral process, and open trade from roughly a quarter to 2/3 in the coming years inch asia we have deals with korea and singapore. we're moving towards concluding with vietnam and japan. we want to finalize our investment agreement with china. within malaysia last weekend to meet with the trade ministers and we discussed how we can move forward in a region to region trade agreement in the future. we're also exploring bilateral negotiations with countries such

as malaysia, nosa, philippines can et cetera. we are working to a new phase in our relationship with africa. last year we concluded partnership agreements with 27 african countries and these are very much about development but also about partnerships. because countries need to slowly gradually and sensitively open their markets for the european union and this is positive step that signifies maturation -- a partnership of equal. in the americas we concluded a groundbreaking agreement with canada in latin america we have a broad network that includes central america care caribbean and the entire pacific coast. our new strategy will look at filling the gene by deepening our existing but ol' grandma of agreement with mex and chile and then we have to deliver. doing a deal with our trade and investment partners will make a

major contribution to expand the amount of our trade. ttip is the lead negotiation to test the most advanced type of trade displays. both sides have to go further on regulatory cooperation than any any other free agreement including the tpp and we want to feel that strengthened regulatory protection while facilitating trade. we want to make sure we can set joint standards that can be leading globally. and we want to make sure that we set state of the art from everything from state-owned enterprises to small and medium sized enterprises. when we come the politic of trade, ttip is important too. it's a testing ground for the rest of the trade policy. ttip is very much about the strengthening our shared transatlantic value never forget that stands for partnership, and we share many

of those values, everything from open market to high levels of leakinger to protection for environment, health, consumers and also our dedication to democracy, human rights, and rule of law. and by coming together around these principles, the u.s. and europe can strengthen our partnerships to defend them, also globally and that's why ttip will be a vital part of the future a property of the world trade system. as secretary kerry said last week by working together we create habits of cooperation that spreads to every a part of our relationships and that gives us a chance to lead together. so, ladies and gentlemen, making trade policy is not easy. it always involves tough discussions and negotiations with partners all around the world, and tough discussions with many different interests at home. you know that and we know that. in keeping up to date is not easy either. i it involves learning new skills and addressing new

political challenges, but it's worth the effort. we live in a world that becomes more integrated every day. an ancient philosopher said the human family now exists under the conditions of a global village. that was 1962. and it's hard to conceive what he would have made out of today's international connections. -- opening to the world is an essential natural response and a resource we have to develop. only by engaging actively and continue obviously consistently, with the world can we hope to shape it and benefit from it. a trade policy backed up by a clear strategy is vital to do that and we need a global trade agenda for globalized world and this is waltz we're becaming to do wind the european unionism know these challenges i outlined are the same challenges you are discussing here in the u.s., so we are looking forward to working closely with you on that. with that, thank you very much for your kind attention and i'm looking forward to the discussion.

[applause] >> thank you so much. you're the best advertisement for a csis intern. you can become a european union commissioner. my name is heather conly the senior vice president here for europe and eurasian. the last time we hosted you commissioner malmstrom was in our old building and you and former deputy secretary of homeland security, were in a dialogue on cyber security. and we can turn to that. we're just delighted to halve you here. what we have, and i think we have about 45 minutes of conversation and discussion. i'm going to get you warmed up a little bit before we let our

audience ask you questions. i know the title is ttip and beyond but i'm going to focus more on ttip rather than the beyond. i know you're fully prepared for that. let me begin -- as a nontrade person i am confused. i'm confusioned about the investor settlement dispute issue. the european union just completed aen agreement with canada. ifds was in there. of the approximation 117 cases worldwide last year, believe isds 75% were used by european firms towards european governments. why now do we have this huge concern about isds, the privatization of arbitration? this could be a show-stopper and we're confused because this is in well over 50% of all

bilateral trade instruments. help us understand what happened that has created this enormous concern and response from europe. >> well, it's a very good question and it does not have an easy answer because these agreements isds, is now the most toxic acronym in europe, all over. you have hundreds of thousands of people who talk about this every day. of you going it it means international shepherd dog society. but that's not what we're talking about today. we are talking about these bilateral investment protection agreements that exist since '1959. it's a german invention and i think there's almost 3,000 globally. but it has somehow become a symbol of big companies challenging the right to govern or the right to regulate for

governments. and i spend half of my working time to answer questions about this. i think it has to do -- i know that's a debate here as well growing. i think it has to do a little bit with the economic crisis, where it's seep as the economic crisis were caused by big companies and they were not following the rules. and putting states in difficult positions. so it's in the big company blame game. a little bit. some countries this is more frequent than others. so what we started to do in and my predecessor started in the canadian agreement to make them more up to date. it's true they are old-fashioned. and they have been -- they were created in the '60s and had more the company's interest than the right to regulate, and with the consumer protection this has grown immediately. so what we are trying to do in the canadaan agreement was to

reform it to make them more transparent, more open, more limited to really make sure that they can only be used for clear cases of -- when investments are in question. what we're doing now in the european union is moving from that toured a modernized system of investment arbitration where investors can feel safe, that they're investments will not be confiscated or discriminated or nationalized but that this is done in an open, transparent way that creates confidence, and we are working with this intensively since -- well, since my first day in office, actually and we will present some ideas this week to the european parliament and member states. >> hopefully we can then sort of have that question resolved, or at least we can focus on other aspects of it. >> let me move to another issue

that we're following care through. plat week we issued a new report fueling online trade and you mentioned the digital agenda, how critical that is. yet we know data protection, transatlantic sharing of data, is a very difficult subject the safe hash pore agreement is now being -- safe harbor agreement is being reviewed and renewed and we know there's enormous impact still in europe over the nsa revelations. tell me what your perspective is on data protection and getting that right? because we're seeing obviously a lot of activity on localization, of servers. the commission is taking strong measures against google and other american information technology sectors is dominant in europe, dominant. and there's some reaction to that simply the competitiveness. how are you approaching data protection and that important transatlantic sharing of