it like to have killed me today, but hillary was ecstatic. [laughter] and she wasn't a candidate for anything, she was grandmother of the year. and last night my granddaughter, nine and a half months old, for the first time when i walked into the room, she said, oh, there's your granddad, and she turned around and pointed at me. that was worth more than anything anybody has said or done for me or paid to me or anything else in, i don't know, a month of sundays. everything you said about it is true. >> yeah. last night my granddaughter spoke to me in mandarin. [laughter] ..

more than enough to block a resolution of disapproval. however the senate may still hold a vote because some senators want a vote on the deal. frank thorpe with nbc news tweeting about supporters that came out today, senators richard blumenthal, gary peters, ron widen and those opposed. senator joe he manchin. 41 senators supportings iran nuclear agreement, 57 opposing it and two undecided. key for the obama administration will be maintaining number of

votes that would be needed if the president vetoes the resolution. the senate returns to work at 2:00 eastern. the iran deal is first order of business. watch live coverage right here on c-span2. south carolina senator lindsey graham who is running for the republican presidential nomination will be talking about the agreement this afternoon and why he opposes it. we'll have live coverage from the national press club in just under an hour, 1:00 eastern time. also at 1:00 on c-span3, former ambassador thomas pickering will talk about the nuclear agreement with former national security advisor sandy berger. and a former undersecretary of state for political affairs. and the house rules committee begins work this evening bringing resolution of disapproval to the house floor of the committee will decide the parameters for debate in the house which is scheduled to begin later this week. watch the rules committee live on c-span3. >> he was a nazi. he was a concentration camp commandant, and he was

responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night, on "q&a," jennifer tiga, on her life altering discovery that her grandfather was the nazi concentration camp commandant, known as the butcher of plaseau. >> he was tremendously cruel person. a person, who was, yes, a person who was, i mean he was capable of, he had dogs, he had two dogs and trained them to tear humans apart. i think that sums it up really good. he was a person, there was a pleasure that he felt when he, when he killed people. and this is, yes, something that when you're normal, if you don't have this aspect in your personality it is very, very difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

and pacific on c-span's q and amount. -- q&a. >> if you ever wonder how data collected on line is used about you, with data and tech experts in homeland security. they met with representatives from the justice department and executives from amazon and zillow. and members of academia. they spoke for about an hour 1/2. >> good evening. as you heard my name is ira rubin steen. my pleasure to welcome you to night's town hall' vent. the topic is civil liberties. as neil richards observes in his rise book entitled, intellectual private very, our most basic civil liberty is freedom of thought. the freedom to explore,

investigate, read about, talk about, write about new ideas, including ideas that unpopular or controversial. freedom of thought is the at core of our civil liberties. without it there is little substance to other cherished liberty abouts. not freedom of speech but also the right to vote, to associate, to assemble and pretty test and otherwise influence public opinion and government decision making. technology has obvious impact on freedom of thought. we rely mainly upon ourselves in a small circle of of acquaintances to try out new ideas. now we're hard-pressed to imagine intellectual activity of any kind that does not depend on use internet, large databases, ebook readers, mobile devices apps around the list goes on. in light of these and other new technologies we clearly need open public discourse how technology impacts our daily lives and our civil liberties. i like to thank town hall

seattle including this topic on their expansive issues. another model i would like to see across issues across america. technology is perfect partner for town hall in this endeavor. in my completely unbiased opinion as a board member, leading american non-profit as very can sy organization translating democratic values for digital age. you will hear from the cdt's president, nuala o'connor. what is impressive about her to find workable solutions in highly partisan and combative landscape of washington, d.c. nuala and cdt recognize this has to have civic discourse and discourse must include citizens, government and business sector. before i introduce your not rate tore for tonight and turn the program to our incredibly distinguished group of panelists i i want to briefly address one

issue i believe is among the most important as we consider the impact of technology on our core civil liberties, that is issue of voter privacy. it is now commonplace for political campaigns to assemble an maintain extraordinarily detailed dossiers on every american voter. these political dossiers contain hundreds even thousands of data points. not surprisingly some of this information is derived from voter registration records but campaigns also buy reams of personal data from commercial databases and campaign websites and social media channels use cookies and other commercial tracking methods to profile their supporters. did you know in the last presidential election both campaigns hired marketing firms to help them match cookie pools, in other words, database of active and targetable cookies with political dossiers in order to identify the most persuadable voters and send them targeted ads anywhere they might show up on the web or that the obama

technical team develop ad social outreach program known as targeted sharing that matched political data with facebook profiles so that obama supporters could persuade their friends to vote for obama? the jury is still out whether these techniqueses are effective but many americans might be shocked to learn how candidates target them without their knowledge or consent. in my own work i have raised two fundamental questions about these data-driven campaign practices. first, does this relentless profiling and micro targeting of american voters intrade their personal privacy? second, how do these new practices affect democracy? many political theorists observe privacy understood as legally protected zone or preserve in which individuals can think their own talks have their own secrets, live their own lives and reveal only what they want to the outside world is vital to the working of the democratic process.

so what hadhappens when campaigns routine invade the zone subject voters political surveillance where their beliefs or preferences are monitored and tracked? these are one of many profound questions we need to address thinking about implications of new technologies for our most fundamental civil liberties. i can name other troubling issues we should consider from discriminatory credit insurance and hiring practices premised surreptitious collecting of data and data analytics to predictive policing with bow to minority report, police departments identify and stop suspects based less on specific information and observation but individual conduct at a particular time and place and more on algorithms that reveal patterns of imminent or future criminal conduct. but i will leave it to night's panel to take this discussion forward. it is now my pleasure to introduce tonight's moderator,

jenny during can and i -- durkan, and ask the panel to come up and be seated while i complete introductions. jenny durkan, washington native and graduate of uw law school served as united states attorney for the western district of washington from october 2009 through september 2014. in this role miss durkan was the chief federal law enforcement officer for western washington responsible for civil litigation and criminal prosecutions and coordination of areas of federal investigative agencies. she also chaired key department of justice committees and work groups charged with crafting national policies and investigative strategies for eyer crime, intellectual property enforcement and consumer privacy. her leadership for the doj on these fronts include testifying before congress on national cyber issues. since leaving this post, jenny has continued to practice law as a partner in the washington, d.c. office of quinn, emanuel.

i@please join me in welcoming jenny durkan. [applause] >> thank you very much. and thank you, ira, for the great introduction but mostly for your leadership in this space. you really have been a true leader nationally on many of these issues. and we're not going to be tracking you all night. just most of the night. what a great pleasure it is to be here at town hall. i think this is one of the best forums we have in seattle for this kind of event, for people to come together to talk about what matters to them. i couldn't be more honored to be asked to moderate this forum what i think is probably one of the most critical issues we face as a society. i think that intersection of technology and all parts of our lives is going to raise fundamental questions about what role privacy plays in our lives and what is important to protect and i can't think of a better panel to do this with. to my immediate right is ryan calo. many of you probably know him. ryan is a professor at the

university of washington law school. comes by way of stanford and probably one of the leading people in the areas of privacy and also robotics. just an exceptional thought thinker. when i was u.s. attorney the people who i looked to in academia to figure out complicated questions i would regularly have ryan on my speed dial. ryan, thank you for being here. [applause] and we are really lucky to have raquel russell not just on this panel but recent relocate tore to seattle, washington, from the other washington. did a sojourn in washington, d.c. and was one of the critical people on president obama's domestic policy shoppe really focusing on urban issues. when i had the good fortune to travel back and forth between seattle and d.c. at doj, when ever there is issue related to some of this, there is a woman in the white house that could really help you. she relocated to seattle and now at sill loy.

we're really fortunate to have her because she can really look at policy implications around these issues. [applause] and the woman who we could spend a lot of time introducing, nuala o'connor accomplished so much, you would think she has to be 80. she has really crafted, she is now president and ceo of cdt i think really taking it to the next natural iteration, to be a real thought leader. one of those places where all people can sit at table to decide what is the right policy initiatives to undertake in these areas. she has got great experience at one of our great companies here, amazon. and worked at ge and she took her experience from that sector and applied it, worked with the department of homeland security. she has seen the range of issues. cdt is really is one of those places that when we needed, i was on a number of inneragency panels in washington and we're trying to decide how do we

broker some of these tough issues in terms of what technology should have in terms of the ability for government to intercept it and the like, no one would even talk to each other sometimes on these issues and cdt plays a critical role letting people broker some of those things but having a real vision of the importance and technology. thank you for being here. [applause] so we're going to, hopefully this will be a kind after conversation style. i will kick it off. requesting different questions, bouncing back and forth. we'll reserve time at the end to take questions from the audience. thank you for being here. we know it is warm here tonight. we hope it will be a really fun thing. one of the first things, it is not "jeopardy," we don't have music but we'll do first a lightning round. i will ask each of the panelists to name what they think is the most exciting new technology and what, and then also to say

whether they think the biggest threat to privacy is coming from government or from private enterprise? so ryan, let's start with what's the most exciting new technology? >> well you wouldn't be surprised to hear i think robots is the most exciting technology. >> shocked. >> shocks me. give you briefly my reason for that. so if you think about the current transforming technology of our time, the internet, right? you think about how the internet came to be so dominant, think of its history. there was the arpa net, which was u.s. military initiative that ended up funding the initial internet and then it was a public/private partnership and so forth and now that very same group of people at, have moved over from aarp pa to darpa and are investing very heavily into robotics. i think we're on the initial curve. i think a lot of companies would agree with me right now. >> raquel, how about you? >> i don't know if i can pick a specific technology but i think

i'm fast sitting by the quick advancement of social media generally. facebook seems like it just started a year ago, a blink of an eye. now we have snapchat and periscope and way newer generations using social media platforms to connect, i this it is fascinating thing. happening so quickly at lightning speed, hard to keep track of. >> nuala. >> at cdt we're interested in new technology and single mother of three young children my hands are literally full. i was in the kitchen, to set a timer what i was cooking. i had goop all over my hands, i need my amazon echo. who has amazon echo. thank you very much. in my completely you know biased opinion as i said about cdt. i have a little biased working on the product while i was there. it is kernel of your "star trek"

computer for your house. if anyone is big "star trek" fan as i am, that is our vision. my vision for technology is positive one. that we will move towards a world of equality and integration and tolerance. fueled and supported by technology that supports democratic values but on a more literal level i love this device. it has a great home manager. it can tell me anything. it talks to me. at least someone at home will listen to me now. never happened before, right? i'm a big fan. privacy policy has a little something to do with this as well. >> that's great. i will say, i think the thing that changed my most recently the starbucks app where you can order it and go pick it up. it is critical to survival. what, i will skip, i said i would talk about government part of things but let's first first, nuala, start at end what is your

in your mind single biggest thing -- this is lightning round so we'll do more later. what has biggest potential to erode privacy without us knowing it? >> any technology? creeping intrusion or assumption all your data should be easily accessible by your government, whatever government that is, state, local, federal. the sense, i worked on issue of digital self, one has boundaries. there are bondaries between you and other, you and your family religious, institutional educational, governmental. i believe we have gone too far in balance of power between the self and the state. so my biggest concern, yes we have real concerns about governments and companies and we can talk all about them but i believe this eroding of the sense of clear boundary around my digital self, in relationship to my government is very concerning it me. if you look at history of again of list-making and governments knowing who you are and where you are and what you're thinking -- i love the reference

to neil richards work, i need to have a safe and sacred space. that includes my space online where i'm free to think and associate and express myself without assuming that will all end up in the hands of the government. >> raquel what do you think. >> i will piggyback on that a little bit and tweak it some. it ties back to my first response around social media is the culture shift is what is happening what is okay to be shared and what is not okayed to be shared. everyone's base line of privacy is constantly shifting and at a very high rate at this point. as the baseline shifts will policy be able to keep up with that cultural shift. >> ryan? >> mine is much more pedestrian. i think facial recognition changes everything. i don't know if you guys noticed i took a flash photo of you. i apologize for that.

table thing to do. i will tweet it, it went well at town hall. when you think about the fact that facebook can recognize your face even fit is obscured, suddenly whether corporation or government or whoever it happens to be, can scour the entire internet and maybe private databases find you, find you where you are, even if you yourself did not up load anything. even if you took pains to obscure your face. i think that is a real sea change. i think that facial recognition is a big, big deal. i know something cdt worked on quite a light. >> that's great. good segue of the last question to the lightning round until we do a final lightning round at end, we talked about, nuaala talked about surrender to government and the balance, i was on a panel with brad smith when i was still united states attorney. look, brad, you want us to have to buy it from you. what is the bigger threat really to personal privacy? is it information that government is collecting, or is

the information that every device you collect, which gets aggregated the larger threat right now? brian, i will start with you. >> the arguments why the government is bigger threat are two. one government has monopoly on violence, right? no matter what facebook might do to you, turns out they can't really throw you in jail and they certainly can't kill you. the question then, but i wonder if that's at the end of the day, not disingenuous but isn't full enough answer, right? corporations can make decisions that affect your lives in incremental way, shorten lifespans and pollute, all kinds of other things. so it is conceivable. the second argument you always hear at least with corporations you understand their incentives. they just want to make money. whereas the government has her curl kind of, maybe they will do things differently in new

regime. i actually personally don't know win is the greater threat. >> i will say selfishly, as someone who was a government employee for 10 years and data breach just recently happened, for many government employees i would have to say the government. it is really scary to think, they have so much information on me personally given jobs i had and information i had to provide in order to get those jobs. for all of those government employees whose information was stolen, that is pretty scary, a scary thing. >> nuala. >> i will show my age at 85, i've been two federal agencies and three major companies that i can remember right now. and the answer without a doubt to me is federal government but let me tell you why. i think you're right, ryan. we all talked about a long time. i was doing deeper thinking knowing you were going to ask this question earlier today. the slicker answer, i always

give the government can put you in jail as ryan points out, monopoly on violence and deprivation of rights and liberty and assets and access to services et cetera. your recourse voting against government activity on data or privacy, vote with your feet to change countries. which seems like draconian response to that sort of thing. your answer in voting against a particular company practice is to not do business with that company. but there is another answer as well which i hadn't thought of before and that is, company -- this is not to throw companies off the hook. good companies are doing hard work on this issue. lots of companies are not. the answer to that, there is a government backstop. when so when there is outlyer or misbehavior there are sec or ftc there was 12 attorney general investigations, twenty one class actions and ftc investigation for a data merger that actually

never happened. we have good enforcement in this country and i know laws in the rest of the world. there are companies and market forces and customer distrust or concern but there is government backstops and legal action that can be taken to protest a company behavior. but again, i really do go to the deprivation of rights and liberties. that is not to minimize, you're absolutely, right, ryan, the opportunity for hidden decision making and opportunity cost and loss about data not knowing to them or presented to them are very real and those are the some of the issues we're working on at cdt. >> just to add something by way of support. another thing to remember, companies can make promises to you that, about your privacy, they're not going to do x, y and z, right? if they do x, y, z and said they wouldn't, federal trade commission can come in and enforce that. if x, y and z we'll not give your information to the government, which some companies say, like we'll push back, we're

not going to give it. if they don't do that, if they don't fulfill that promise, the government will not police against it. you know what i mean? >> of course. >> it will be like, guess give it to the doj it's fine. ftc will not enforce a promise by a company against itself essentially, right? so that is, adding a little bit of -- >> to build on that. we'll be in violent agreement all night long. i'm sorry about that we will mix it up a little bit. we probably will but the opportunity for an individual to kind of, again to correct that wrong or to complain about that it's very, very hard to make that case to the government, as you point out when they have got data and it's not known and not transparent. i also was a victim of the opm breach as many of us were. that is why to me compelling public policy issue and database and government collection and impacts relationship directly to the government and relationship

directly to the companies. and bleeding and blurring of line, potential lack of clarity or lack of boundaries between private sector data sets, collected mostly with your knowledge. that would be a big theme i would say in direct to company advocacy, transparency, accountability, data minimization, do you know what you're collecting and relationship to the company and but it is blurring of the lines that erodes trust not only the government but companies as well. so that issue of government data collection erodes the whole ecosystem of the internet and trust in my ability, again not only to transact with companies but to speak my mind. >> i'm going to moderate and jump in a little bit. you know, i think when i was u.s. attorney for five years i was chief federal law enforcement officer and obviously government used its powers it could to collect information in the criminal setting. i won't talk about the national security setting. i really believe that the generation coming up is different as raquel says from my

generation in a number of ways and for a number of reasons. but i think they are being conditioned from every angle to not care about privacy. and to think privacy doesn't matter. and i actually think that is due mostly to the monetizaton of the lack of privacy and that's where i think, maybe it is not the actual collection of privacy although we'll talk about that later, that i think there are a lot of dangers but it is the constant mantra of, privacy doesn't matter and we'll talk about this in a little bit but i think if -- everyone on the panel, people don't read privacy policies before they click i agree. people don't know how the information is being used. it is not transparent. that educated person, from the days of in the '50s there were contracts of adhesion, they changed it, can't have small print. i think we'll see evolution of that as well. government has to be circumscribed. that is in our constitution. part of who we are.

we always have to fight the battle. i think we is to keep an eye on, what is private industry doing what can they do and what should they do? so we talked a lot about interconnectedness. you dry up to tollbooth. have automatic pass. drive across 520 bridge. automatically sends something. automatically sends to your bank. everything is connected. it is more difficult to do things today, not leave a digital trace. and so, segue is, do consumers really understand what information is being collected about them? nuala? >> no. i never want to be the voice on any panel says the consumer is not knowledgeable or whatever. i think it is almost hard to keep up with the level of technological advancement but i am the more hopeful. i'm still, despite what i've seen both in government and private sector, i'm still most hopeful voice on panel for number of reasons. i believe greatly. there are good people in the

government and private sector trying to get this right. i believe there are good companies, when simply sparking dialogue about customer expectations and customer trust are doing right thing. are trying to get this right. i agree with your point about privacy policies completely having written more of them than anybody this room. i'm the mark twain or faulkner, i don't know what author of privacy policies no one ever read. that is no longer the way. that is not to say privacy is dead or fair practice or tenets we espouse this country and others are dead but they need to be reimagined for work of digital age for internet of everything and everywhere and i'm going to go back to my amazon echo example because i'm so proud of the echo, having worked a little bit about it. >> really. >> can you tell? people in the room i can't name it. only traces are a alexa or amazon. i want to call it somebody inappropriate for audience. want a name like my personal

assistant. anyway, but that device has privacy protections not only built into the hardware and software of the programing but literally in the device. it lights up when it is listening. it circles when it is actually actively listening and collecting data. there are other ways to signify, i'm very much into non-very ban cues. look at -- verbal cues. look at airport signs. i left the washington, d.c. airport, he can't quite read the sign that says airplane or luggage or whatever. . .

you know that there's data being collected an it's being used. maybe we don't know the extent of it as the average consumer, for many consumers specially younger generations we weigh the pros and cons. the ease that those -- you know those technologies bring completely outweigh -- i am not like 100% convinced nor have i

don't any due diligence to make sure it's going to be safe. i rather do that than fill it out by paper and pen, so i do. >> what do you think? >> i get beat up allot on the -- a lot on whether notice works. i wrote a paper in which i say -- >> that's the short version of the title. >> that's the short version. [laughs] >> we should do more notice that's built as a very product, i think there's a will the of opportunity for that. i also think that there's a lot of opportunity to have a privacy disclosure for the more sophisticated entity, so for the, if dc, -- journalists.

we should be tracking, a two-track notice. i will say that at tend of the day, i hope we talk about this more. it's really about asymmetry. it's about the fact the company knows an unbelievable about you and you don't know hardly anything about them. you can't even begin to scope how much more they know about you. that matters and i want to talk more about that. i am spectacularly sort of hopeful about the potential of smart design to convey information. >> how much do we leave to market or at what point should consumers have some absolute right to know, for example, what

has been collected or agreggated and to be able to look at it. what do you think, ryan? >> i agree with the commissioner that consumers should have much more access and understanding to their information in the hands of data brokers. i totally commend you to speeches about reclaim your name initiative. she's using her position as a regulator but hinting at the idea that if we don't get these kinds of ability to access, correct and so forth, perhaps at some point the federal trade commission will come along and do something about it. in other words, a lot of, i think, of competition around privacy happens against the back-drop.

it's very difficult to say what the regulation is because it's people get over this and there's a possibility of that. and the people who are authority who in turn have power because of authority. i'm glad i said it. [laughs] >> we're here to talk and not answer questions. i'm glad i said it. >> i don't know that we can rely solely on government. government does mot move as fast as technology. specially in technology space, i don't see how that works. the technology is constantly changing and is -- i just don't see how politics will keep up with that to a full degree.

i don't know if we can rely wholly on policy and government in order to protect our privacy. i'm a behavior that education is key in this, right. i think that we may educate consumers on the data that is being collected and what we would consider the privacy infringement and may may think that that's okay. there's going to be some check and balances. i don't think that all consumers are going to be concerned, but i do think the education to consumers is going to be very important. >> so education, just to understand you correctly, education can keep up with technology, but law can't? >> i'm not sure that anything can keep up with technology. i'm only six months into working

in the technology sector. to say that things move at lighting speed as the way things move in the government is understated. i don'ti don't know how governmt alone can keep up with the pace of technology. the new con deft is corporate social responsibility and corporate social responsibility in the digital world means responsible use of data and information as part of the transaction with the customer and i thought this in the dark ages, before any of you were born, apparently. before the first.com. [laughs] >> modems wheen i first started.

it didn't happen because the offline data was on punch cards. there was no way to mesh them. i know you all get what a cookie is and what the tracking looks like but it's fairly benign because you are -- but this freaks people out. like my professional legal opinion, if you want to be the promotor of a new technology, you have to not only think about it use responsibly but help educate the consumer so that they can make intelligent choices. i can make all the arguments all day long. i would argue on the federal privacy law in this country.

the market is not just this country, it's global. we need to be thoughtful of where we are and we are not even on the plain field. we are considered the great unwashed in the dialogue in the rest of the world on how we treat individual customers, you know, consumer and individual data. i gave a speech at the conference 15 years ago, going through all the u.s. privacy laws, and there are a lot. children privacy protection act, video protection act. if you go through each one it takes you a long time specially if you're speaking slowly to a mult audience. europeans have one law, one law. it's a lot ofassier to explain.

attorney general and blah, blah, blah. there's one way to go to complain, you see in that. i think there's lots and lots of flaws and the fundamental principles but latin americans have a phrase, my data, myself. i really like that. to me that speaks to my idea. they have some rights when i give it. forgive me, i used to use it before i worked there. you have to give them the address so they can deliver the book. that's part of the deal. it's profoundly impossible consummate the deal. it's still my address and it's still where i live and i retain rights in the data and i like

the contract far more than u.s. property rights or even, you know, regulatory structure around european rights law. it's still not mine. it's mine. it's part of me. >> i think you're right. if you look at the areas where we tried to legislate around technology, by the time we get it enacted it's already obsolete . i made the mistake of ordering a pizza and they said, what's your phone you remember. i said, you don't need to call me just order my pizza. i was complaining to a friend of mine who happened to be state attorney general at the time. we had meetings for over a

period of a year, we included them well and we had a host of things. one was con -- consumer privacy. you can't collect information until they opt to it. you only collection information for that transaction. then you have to be done with. the first part of it was the first identity theft in the country. that day 85 new business lobbyist registered. it was amazing. and they killed the consumer-privacy part of it. we did get the first identity theft bill passed and became a national model. it showed me then, everyone understood that there was a way to monitor the data and take people.

so are there fundamentals principles where people should say, i will give you my address, but i only want you to give me my address to send me the book, you can't use it for anything else. >> i take the point by the time federal aviation approved drone by amazon, by the time they got the application approved amazon had moved on and had to apply again. on the other hand, if you think about the laws that the federal treaty commission enforces, what they say is that you can't be unfair or deceptive.

guess what, it matters in 2015. it's what we call a standard instead of a rule. and so i don't totally understand why the government couldn't be more responsive. one issue that i will immediately concede is that the government does not have adequate technical expertise. that's something you get speaking of violent agreement around all around and i think the federal commission is trying to address that by hiring very good technologists. they hired someone from my lab. that's a big problem not having adequate understanding. i'm sure each of you encountered that. i don't know that the law can't keep up in some deep sense. we have ways of, you know what i mean. did the fourth amendment keep up? >> a general standard can keep

up. those are the things that i'm not sure that government can keep up with. to say something should be fair and -- and just, what does that mean? that's where the concern is, but that is not to say that there should not be policies and government shouldn't have a role to play. i don't think we can rely wholly on the government of the way the government sometimes works. >> fair enough. >> you wanted to jump in on that. >> i despair of this congress. [laughs] >> i think if we were drafting, a clean sheet of paper in this country looks like it would be very short and high-level principles. once you create a particular standard around the technology

or a security standard or whatever, you create a target for the hackers to shoot at. this is what we are going to do. but i think the high-level standards and the act is the right place to point. a fairness, fair dealing and more around the information. it would be a very short bill and we would have all the same changes we experienced of we'ving -- weaving through the data. >> the federal commission is trying to decide how it's going to regulate privacy. it has a long history of having technology-specific-kinds of rules that are slow.

as it drags certain kind -- i don't want to get too technical. , if cc -- it has an opportunity to write for service providers, there are many options and the other will be the approach of looking to broader standards. it's a real choice. sometimes it makes the wrong choice. >> i was struck with something that ira said. where does the person whether you are the team who is carried about sex transmitted disease, where do they go without being tracked or leaving a record? maybe it goes back to government and private companies, you know, try right now researching something unanimously.

>> they go to mozilla firefox. [laughs] >> if you go online there's going to be tracking of searches, on the one hand it was very trarns parent -- transparent for facebook to give history. on the other hand, people sit on the computer and have been using it a lot like a library. i want to find about x and think about x and the search never knowing that someone was maintaining that forever. what should we do to provide there's the ability of freedom of thought? [laughs] >> you know, this is not a perfect answer, it's barely an answer at all. but i do think that the level of

expectation is changing. i expect someone to be collecting the data, but what i also expect is that they are not going to use it against me and so i expect them to monotize and it comes up the next time i open up my laptop and i open up, you know, chrome, which is what i use. whatever you use. i expect that. i just expect it not to be used against me and abused. i do think that the level of expectation is changing. i don't think it's completely generational. i have friends to forgive to give gmail. he forbids to get one because

they're tracking what she's buying. she has made that choice and i made a different choice. i don't know how -- how you have that kind in the information age. i don't know how you do that. >> i can tell you one case where someone came to me and they were concerned about a particular governmental misconduct and they want today report it because they wanted to remain a whistleblower, unanimous. they could not find a route to do it. does that hurt us as a associate? >> there are tools and smaller tools and i talked to folks in the privacy enhancing security spaces and they are not widely accepted. they're really hard to use. so they haven't taken off and it

does reflect somewhat their own lack of and widespread desire. i don't care about anybody knowing or anyone to know. raquel's answer was perfect and beautiful. i'm still hard over the collection side as well. but i don't want it to be used against me. it's not just the data, it is also the decision. and what we are -- our decision project in looking at unintended impact in data collection and a variety well engineers, should be stressed testing new technology, devices for impact

that may simply be not something that they were thinking about when they were designing or consideration, but having those values again, equality, democracy of equal impact are the way to get this right and i get the quote, we are still at day one of the internet. many people in this day say, it's too late. no, no, we are still in the early days of getting this right and -- but decisions we make now will last for decades for centuries and so we really need to do the hard work around fairness and equality and embedded internet. >> so much information has aggregated.

the reverse is the reverse marking trying to get you the buy stuff, give you mortgage cheaper. what kind of steps you think we can take to prevent against that? >> i think that's speaking of a million-dollar question. that's so hard. it doesn't seem to be intentional as the way we think of intentional. i cannot imagine folks that out there to redline on purpose the way that we once did. >> hahs -- it's happening. [laughs] >> let me say it a different way. can you imagine that the folks at google or facebook would be sitting there and thinking to themselves that they want to deny people on the basis of

color or race? i don't think they are intentionally doing that. maybe some people do it intentionally. look, yes, right. it's something that i think about and write all of the time. i guess what i'm trying to say that so much of the mischief is going to be unintentional. it's interesting that you guys have a different intuition. i would like to sell it that way, you know what i mean, but i don't think it can be. >> what do you think in. >> i go back to the housing crisis. i don't know how much data and technology was being used specially around communities of color. i don't know. if they had that technology, would they use, it sure. >> gosh, that's further than i would go. it's already a problem -- >> i don't know that they were using technology or data to do

that so they had technology at their hands that could allow them to do that since they were doing intentionally anyway. >> i take it back then, honestly. [laughs] ..

and when they are armed with an immense amount of information about you, they are going to leverage the information. is precisely what he said that people doing bad things are now going to be bad things with lots of data. i guess i've always thought it's bad enough these things will fall in what is known on the disparate impact, the idea if you didn't design your task to keep people of color out of the fire department come the fact it does is enough to say not what society should tolerate. some folks to a non-purpose and that's right. >> this was the question was phrased differently so he wasn't prepared for it. i'll take part of that responsibility. >> it is your fault. >> always the moderators fall. i think we see already a huge

digital divide in our country between those who have ready access to technology and those who don't. what are the things we can address them learn about the importance of privacy but at the same time make sure there is an equal playing field fair. what do you think about that? >> that is the fundamental question. without that access online and other parts of the road as the critical juncture. people don't have access to computers but the reality as it happens in our own country. you see a lot of advocates did that is frankly condescending to the rest of the world. the reality is there are kids in schools who can't do their homework because they don't have a computer at home and that sort of thing. privacy seems like a nice to have for people who don't have the physical are software tools to get the devices and information they need and that

is this rational question. we talk about managed holiday and other invisibles of open internet but as a mom i am concerned about the fairness at the earliest possible ages and reinforcing discrimination by increasing the divide over time. digital literacy has to start the earliest ages. i would love to see not only real thought about computer science encoding and curriculum and access to hardware at their early stages across the country, but literacy how to behave online and be a consumer of information, but i love initiatives around coding and computer science as science in the curriculum because there is still a hierarchy of science is considered adequate in elementary and secondary

education in knowing and understanding the code and been able to discern for ourselves whether there is disparate impact we don't like the algorithm arena what is behind the curtain. those are skills that kids 30 years from now really need. >> i heard something interesting for one of the founders that we all took biology in school. i dissected a frog in new all along i would never be a dark but i still have to do that. kids now days need to learn how to code and learn computer science. it's too much part of our day-to-day. when it comes to internet access and inequality and we all know it is hard to get by without being connected somehow to the internet. many of us who are better off

are extremely connect to it. i don't know what i would do if i left my phone at home. i would literally be lost as i'm new to seattle. their children at home who not can't afford it, their homes are not hardwired. that you shouldn't be in a country where information age is. >> the other thing we can say with confidence is they are vetted as against the mainstream population and that's where it will be a non-mainstream population. this is at the direction of one of my co-pei's is we have

created panels of people not mainstream in order to do analyses that we look at. for instance we will look at gender, disability and the panels will be people who study disability. one reason don hannah was the prison system. the definition of technology as utility another contours change dramatically. i'll give you one quick example which is the augmented reality, the idea that there's a layer of reality over what you see and i thought of it as an augmented. i never thought of it as a problem if you were to show up on rented reality when you are in the bathroom or boardroom. but when we talk to people with disabilities, the recent augmented reality as a substitute that they didn't

have. it's deeply problematic to turn it off in a boardroom or bathroom and that's an insight we simply wouldn't have realized had we not done that. can we really better technology that way. >> diskettes do not only the pipeline issues in the tech industry and with lots of conversations about diversity on panels and development stage nec devices by a non-diverse segment. this is not in a hot moment. marketing rice at the numerous were women buying goods and they started putting them on the team because they could speak to the customer. and we didn't invent these issues are solving them. i would hate to call out the device but it's oculus that did not work.

it is a visual viewer. >> viewfinder with that at a wit that didn't work for every woman's eyes and it was not tested and reflects the fact there were no women on the design team. and there's all sorts of studies. women on boards and leadership and design teams for technology will better serve results. that is one example of the diversity in the pipeline and created the device will end up with better devices and hardware and software in the future. >> we are getting close to q&a time. tomorrow night and runs at the end will take questions from the audience. so the europeans is the e.u. has a different approach to privacy and is much more privacy centric and not enough people know there's a recent case in the

court that people have the right to be forgotten so they can write and say i want to be out of the searches. there's recently a follow-up search that says that doesn't apply to european. it's anywhere you have this urge. they can appear in a u.s. resort or european at all. right to be forgotten, good things that hangs. real estate, forget about it. i will start at the end. >> i open my big mouth. i'll try to give you time. it's okay. i think it goes back to the point about the digital files. if it is about me choosing my life to be forgotten or my life

as they know and out there that make sense from a consumer perspective realistic in the u.s. to me it doesn't seem so realistic in the u.s., but there's a lot of policies and a lot of policies to european countries have that we just don't. this is one of those wearing the right circumstances with the right stars aligned, maybe we could do in the u.s. but if it takes an area in my opinion. >> i totally agree. and pratt does they are probably going to be almost impossible. for two reasons.

the europe doesn't think about that quite as much. number two, i had an attorney here in the audience who worked for the internet archive and something called away that machine that allows it to look at the version of the site from five years ago for six months ago. guess it's going to be there? the same thing you took down. the same picture. and i don't know how and all those lobbyists as they dropped the bill in olympia. that just seems my feeling has left me and i don't know how it was to pass that.

so we take down the u.s. debate and it's not that simple. [inaudible] we have a right to be forgotten in the united states. my favorite law allows for deletion of records after seven years, 10 years. we decided as a society have the right to be forgiven in the financial contacts but also a fundamental obligation not accurately and correctly or credit decisions premised on very good social policy foundations of equal access to credit regardless of race, et cetera. if you're arrested at the minor they are expunged from the sealed, a race. so we decide in specific cases, public access for fairness, equality, access to the market

is essential to the social good and in some cases it is okay to have a very spiritual thing. >> did i mention she's irish? >> in europe, the right to be forgotten has gone too far. you sit and read it once it's translated as far more measured and how it's implemented and people with access to resources and money on lawyers asked to have embarrassing to have pulled down. if it's true about you and something that happens very public figure and is relevant to the larger social good like most historical facts are, we shouldn't go to rewrite history and that worries me from it history standpoint an opportunity to be known. we have some control and revenge

and access to non-consensually shared and non-consensual explicit material about control of one data and image are very important. being able to say i'll take it down and then harassing and i'm sorry i did become a public figure or elected official, the first request for some former member of the u.k. parliament had been caught in some financial scandal. that is important for voters to know who they will reelect. the dialogue and debate is far more nuanced that i have become from privacy origin, my year and a half has made me go far over to the speech under attack. as speech against the government is at greater thing under attack

and i worry greatly about it. >> we are going to take questions from the audience and with a microphone over here. so if you have questions, line up their and we will take them one at a time. if you want to introduce yourself to appear in >> i'm very interested in the freedom of speech or the inhibiting the lack of privacy provided. recently i was clicking on some statements are new sanders was making and i was interested in what i was reading in the next time i know i had a pop up to the communist party. i'm actually building a profile and i need to wake up to the fact i am doing that i need to be either an active participant

or back away and reassess it completely. any comments about the innovation to freedom of speech happening due to a lack of privacy. >> i think that's an important question. it's important to remember big difference between how you experience something and potential something will be used against you. in my own work i differentiate between a subject to privacy harm. i'm talking about the chilling effect. it is fair to say being able to google things controversial about gender identity, diseases, anything. being able to get an answer is less chilling than having to go to the library and or asking your parents or friends. the point has been made recently

where you just talk about the fact people are good at these trade-offs. google has a record of the fact that you don't need to ask anybody. on the other hand, there is a prospect that unlike your friend who goes enough the question of the library and our doctor, the company is in a position to leverage and music and tear. sometimes in using it against you are using it in a certain way you've come to be aware suddenly, subject to really aware of the fact you are trapped and then you have both the subject to chilling in the objective used against you. it is useful to talk about the difference between feeling like you are surveilled and the consequences of that. the worst thing is you don't feel you are surveilled at all but things are denied to you.

>> question is that an issue that the advertising model. it's one thing and one thing to miller ensign collect data for google and facebook are in the business of selling ads so they resell the data. i wonder what protections are necessary for guiding privacy of that data. >> secondary use. nuala, i will let you do that. >> i'm so much more concerned about content and as ryan pointed out the deprivation affects us to opportunity. the advertising industry is moving towards more trends. see, more accountability and to choose not to be a part of it. what worries me is the example

would just like to get a job search site for people navigating were shown a search for seattle jobs than they were shown to 80% and 12% women based on their surfing history. it wasn't the outcome of it the opportunity. the people surfing didn't know they were being shown something in the same category and no-space-on assumptions. interestingly not based on a knowing search based on a person's name but simply they've come to the site from a "sports illustrated" site for men or fashion site are women and back to me is the unintended disparate impact. it was set up to show people for this city in this level job.

the alcove is based on a model across website tracking model of very disparate impact. that worries me not only the data but the decision made about you and what you are not seen. >> i would go further than not. there's some fundamental print those. people have a right to know what data is collect it, how it is used by the entities in who they give it to so they can make the decision whether they continue in the transaction are not. if you get the three pieces and are able to do it and ran out the market i don't give people adequate information and there's a lot of arguments that people vote with clicks. i don't think the majority of people understand what information is collected, how it is aggregated with other information. by paying we will not solve the

good we have to and companies more thoughtful. >> unit just answered my question because i was thinking feasibility of your credit report that you would be able to once a year find out what data has been collected from you and how it has been used and companies would be embarrassed to admit that they were collecting which might cause them to back off and people would then be aware of what was done with everything we did on mine. people you know the ftc and others have talk at the federal level and they are doing now. anyone who is a data collector would show individuals informatiinformati on they've collected almost like the fair credit reporting act so you could see if it's accurate and if it's not, make sure it's correct good and no one is

collected on you. that will only happen if the market demands it. >> i'm glad tom brought up the subject of government and corporate blurring. when it comes to young people come to anyone under the age of 25 beaten consumers. corporations now sell products in an intriguing way that kids don't consider the thought of anything about me. i worry they are interested in privacy. they are really not. they are interested in products and have to make sure people under the age of 25, especially teenagers start getting interested in data collected on them. >> that's an important point and i don't want to be like that generation because the not just that. i am over 25, but i will say

oftentimes as someone who has hired people and hired people in their mid-20s, i am fascinated at the things they think it's okay to put on the internet, that they choose to put on the internet. i think it's a technology issue or data issuer privacy issue. i think it's a young person issue. when i was younger is the same way but it was in the technology and data because it wasn't where it is now. young people don't think about long-term use. that is the case for every generation commitment to the moment where we realize there's consequences of action and inaction. for this generation and generations to come, the consequences never leave and it's always going to be better.

[inaudible] >> one trend i worry about a lot is the trend from what we do online up until now in the last few years, which is online preference marketing where you see ad on the basis of what companies leave your preferences are and the at&t like soccer, we give a bunch of examples on the panel. the way it is headed is a little more in the direction of living to which is something called persuasion profiling. it does not look at what you're interested in. he looks at how persuadable you are in the best technique.

let me quickly say this is science. one example in a study turns out some people are really worried about what other people think and they want something really popular. for those people you figure that out and say our most popular item. other people out there could care less. because if somebody grew up, they worry about scarcity. the same product is advertised by saying while supplies last. the author of the study is now on the data side team that facebook. that is the direction these things are going and do something to keep a close eye on. >> server. -- sarah. >> i'm jennifer.

i just graduated. >> we are to do that. and the shop -- [laughter] >> a couple of things came up about things having to start from the design side of things than ryan you have this sense they are not working with mal intent. this grading algorithms without sameness will disseminate by because the where education is right now, we are in the traditional studio-based curriculum where we don't consider the things we are doing as far as ethical and social indications but we are producing things at a very fine class and that is what has been happening in silicon valley.

our centers pipeline in the microsoft and all the studio-based curriculums bringing into the tech world without any bearing of what we are working on. i would say with a fair amount of confidence with the engineering side of things. i did a two-quart of wine research saying about x and design. i talked to a bunch of students in san francisco and then i talked to people at berkeley and all the people were doing engineering and design and truly don't care about ethics and i know that sounds flippant, but it's true. what do we do to get behind all of it? >> i don't it's okay, but i don't think it's their job to care about the ethics. the company needs to hire someone who does.

the u.s. designer committee engineer, you have a job. develop, code, make sure works and is perfect but there needs to be someone at the company thinking about privacy and ethics and moral issues. the u.s. designer or engineer. i get your point with regard to god. i don't think it's in a vacuum. a company is not just -- trust me, i'm not an engineer or u.s. designer. so i think it's just about hiring -- >> but she does have morals. >> i do when i would weigh in on something like that. so it's not okay, but it doesn't mean the company or the organization is off the hook. >> i think there's three good

points you raise on that. one is i've been talking to educators in silicon valley and the going to send a should read what can we as a change that is academia but also having the companies themselves interdisciplinary teams of engineers say we got this we can do x y and the period or should we do that. making sure you have that in the development stage. you see the same thing around security. technology away outstrips security and people build all sorts of intelligence that did not have security built-in and would pay a heavy price for it. >> and offered cleaner from chicago. i'm from the president neighborhood. i would kind of like to look at the big picture.

i am wondering how efficient all of the internet and so forth, even though i must admit it has helped me. i could rarely type when i got out of high school and it's made me into a writer since i learned how to use it. so i am grateful for it. at the same time, with all of the communication is supposed to be given us and all the marvelous central intelligence and so-called intelligence, the hundreds of billions of dollars that we give to them, we still didn't know the ussr was falling apart, that the berlin wall was

coming down. we did not know how many tanks and string when we invaded iraq. we did not know how to get a hold of bin laden and we send thousands of troops and tens of billions of dollars for a week to invade iraq again. i'm not am wondering, tell me how efficient is the internet with all these marvelous intelligence agencies working in the government to give us the information we are supposed to know about so that we stop making wrong decisions.

please tell me. >> i think the answer is we can never rely on the technology of the humans are good. sorry about your robot, technology can't replace humans. it is only as good as the people making the decisions. >> we have time for one last quick question. >> sorry, folks. >> i am curious in this conversation that i don't think the dangers were top about a lot. we talk about corporations than they might use the information against us and a black male way that i don't think that is the real risk. there is a lot of risk with tracking and who can have access to the data.

my family just got into the iphone stats and how it can count every step you make. the idea that everybody knows exactly where they are and whether the movers ending still is very serious and concerning and the idea of using google as a search engine, that is better than talking to the library and her parents or friend or something is as harmful as i might scene. they are accused of someone and now your entire internet histories scrutinized or whether psychological studies, to determine what ours are you searching information or how many times over the religious

and educational inquiry or an addiction or something. so if you have any comments on that. >> first i apologize to the people at questions and didn't get an answer. some of you can say around. i think it's a good question and we didn't get into it but one that we did get to his personal safety if you are, particularly domestic violence victims or anyone. it is hard to find and easy to find people and if you do find them you can get aerial surveillance of their house and sometimes the to their house and incredible amounts of information about individuals. it was an acute problem because we the number of potential terrorist threat against critical infrastructure and yet because we are a transparent society we had online access to the emergency at this and tunnels for the public holdings

in seattle. i think you're absolutely right there is built-in things we have to look at individual cases. >> are you a law student? [inaudible] >> will give you an internship if you stay. talked to emily. as a privacy law nerd, i should tell you there is a back-and-forth that have been early on in the days of privacy law literature between one of the most influential privacy scholars around in an interesting and amazing scholar by the name of and part 2. and birds have reviewed the unspoken understanding privacy and she gave a decidedly negative review. she said where are the dead

bodies. you're talking about the digital person in this and that. but what about people's lives. over the years i feel like we see more and more dead bodies. some by their own hand because something intimate they did was shared in film and they kill themselves. people are dead because of drought strikes and other reasons. information is power and sometimes that gets abused in a violent way. i appreciate your point and recommend that back-and-forth as a student of privacy law. >> one last thought. nuala. >> and still be optimists of everyone on the panel. we should be worried about the lines between your online presence and reelect president and the risk you've shared.

however it's so dispiriting congress in the interagency warfare, the supreme court is getting it right. it was quoted in the last technology cases. your cell phone is the digital equivalent of data in a foot locker with all your data in saying that his he on the scope of law enforcement intrusion in recognizing the gps tracking far beyond social norms than what is there and what is right. will try a lot of things and get them wrong. we would get to the right answer amazed at the dates for the the platform is not laid at we are engaging in a dialogue.

>> final thought is any invention and innovation can be used for good and for bad. we as a society have to make sure we are not sleeping when innovation is being used for bad and that is the same with technology. i think the conversation around the information and data being tracked and aggregated, the level -- the expectation is existing in this country ambassadorships i think that's okay. but i think they're still checks and balances of making sure it's not used against you the same way technology can be efficient and make sure i don't get lost in seattle can also be used against me and be a power abuse. we have to make sure we are doing what we can as a

democracy. >> on a hopeful note, things have gone in many peoples views too far and now there is a reaction and course correction. there saw these hopeful cases. there's a meaningful competition in the places you might expect to say they are more private. even among federal agencies we see competition so different agencies are getting into the mix and pushing each other a little bit in terms of what angst or pursue them with fines to levy and so forth. i'm on one level very hopeful but i think it is sad we had to go so far down the road before the reaction is finally starting to happen. >> i think it's optimistic and looking in this room shows that

matters and at the end of the day i believe in our democracy that it is the people who will decide and can decide if they had the information. thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> at afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. hope you all enjoyed an extra long weekend. i don't have anything so we can start with questions. >> what is the reaction to the only one vote in the senate on the iran deal and are you pushing for the deal to sell a bus error?

>> the administration is gratified by the current support rescinding that is if the congress for the international agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. what we hope to the agreement was announced in mid july is members of congress would carefully consider the contents of the agreement come to take advantage of the opportunity extended by the administration to consult with those who negotiate the agreement in the first place, spent time with experts in the intel community and certainly our diplomatic corps to understand consequences for terms of the agreement. we hoped they would consult with experts to understand consequences of the steps iran would take to reduce the stock pile and shut down the path to a nuclear weapon and integrate the most intrusive set of inspections ever imposed on a

nuclear program. on the republican side we saw republicans in congress, nearly all of them announced their support before the agreement was even reached and now was the source of some disappointment that is why i can relate we feel gratified today because the vast majority of those who did take time to consider terms of the agreement and participate in briefings and meetings and even hear first-hand from the president what he believes are the most important aspects of the agreement. those individuals have over thoughts couple months indicated their plan to support the agreement before the united states congress. [inaudible] >> what we expect of those members of congress to take the steps in congress to prevent

them from undermining the agreement. just in anticipating some of the arguments we may hear from the other side, you have heard me and both of my predecessors in the obama administration expressed frustration that the rules of the united states senate that were to his credit effectively employed by minority leader mitch mcconnell to sign me many aspects of the president's agenda including high priorities because of the 60-vote threshold required to do just about any thing in the united states senate. it would be ironic for majority leader mitch mcconnell to express concerns about attack a key and self-employed on countless occasions.

the other thing i will point out is the 60-vote threshold is one that is approved by the 98 senators who voted for the corker cardin legislation back in the spring. there has been no change that was nature. this is how everyone to the procedure for congress to consider the agreement would work. >> nsc issued a statement as actively considering ways to respond including the settlement. could you be more specific when you talk about refugee, are you talking about -- [inaudible] >> julie, what this alludes to is essentially a reconsideration led by the state department who

has jurisdiction for issues to see what the administration and the country can do to help our allies and partners in europe deal with significant and growing humanitarian situation that is an outgrowth of the instability we have seen in the middle east and north africa. the united states has already taken a number of significant steps to address the humanitarian crisis. the united states is the single largest bilateral to provide for the needs of those syrians were fleeing violence in their communities. the united states has been an active participant but by the u.n. to resolve peacefully the disagreement and outright violence in that country.

we continue to be concerned about the vulnerable position of so many people fleeing violence in their own countries and the united state in the way we play a leading role in the other problems are prepared to continue to play a leading role in trying to assess the organizations to meet the needs and basic humanitarian needs of individual. [inaudible] >> there is a process for doing what is run by the date department. >> -- making special allowances right now. >> this is under the act of

consideration of the state department and i don't have any new approaches at this point, the consistent with a statement issued yesterday where the administration is considering a range of approaches to consider with a very difficult challenge. >> to follow-up on that with the approaches you are considering with congressional approval. >> there may be some. there is no specific piece of legislation but i wouldn't rule out an important role for congress in terms of putting in place those policies. >> you have any ideas what this item vault? >> we are trying to determine the best set of policies would be and we will value a the context this is hated with them. >> the white house believes the united dates have the

responsibility to take a greater role in refugees that are really overcrowding europe right now and other countries like that. >> the united states is what the pond by the world should take a leading role in responding to a wide variety of situations. there is no denying the situation many of our european partners are confronting right now is a significant one. we know there are countries like turkey and jordan just to cite two examples that have been bearing a significant burden with regard to syria in refugees and others who may be flamed area because of violent. the united states has provided significant financial support and other kinds of support to those countries as they have tried to meet the basic humanitarian needs of those

fleeing violence in syria. this situation is not new and arrest or to assist those countries bearing the brunt is not new, but it does appear the situation is worsening and that is why the united dates will continue to consider to help those countries bearing the brunt of the burden right now. >> just a quick question. do you expect all of those 41 people supporting the deal to also vote for a proposal? >> each of those members of the senate will announce how they vote on this procedural questions themselves. i don't have any announced that on their behalf, but i don't think it should be a surprise to

anybody who follows debate. the congress would weigh in on the international agreement with iran and what we are discussing this with a contemplative. we met there people holding town halls in iowa these days. >> is going to des moines, iowa to a town hall. tons of presidential candidate candidate -- [inaudible] >> i will have more news on the president's travel today. >> he discussed extensively why he's not going to do that. justin. >> there is some legislative

before so i'm wondering if congress is reaching a deal and whether the white house has started any negotiation with presidential -- >> the president spoke forcefully about this yesterday about how important it is in the midst of the global economic stability we have seen that congress not commit an unforced error and shut down the government. the fact is that would have a negative impact on our economy. it would contribute to some instability and our economy is confronting more than enough instability. we are hopeful common sense will prevail and the bipartisan agreement of some kind will be reached will both prevent a

government shutdown that also make sure our country's economic and national security priorities are funded at an adequate level. i don't have any specific telephone calls or meetings tell you about. i would rule out any sorts of conversations with senior administration officials and members of congress. negotiations that need to take place are not negotiations between congress and the white house, but negotiations between democrats and republicans in the united states congress. congress after all is the one was constable for negotiating and passing a budget. obvious way the president has to sign the budget into law. the administration will be engaged in those conversations but negotiations that take place between democrats and

republicans. there's been a repeated -- a repeated -- acetic repeated attempts by republicans in congress to pass appropriation bills along party lines. the effort has been unsuccessful and underscores the need for congress to work in a bipartisan fashion and be willing to work with democrats to build a bipartisan majority for a budget proposal and we would welcome any sort of constructive conversations along those lines that would yield a bipartisan debate. >> when you adequate funding levels and a half the more press in question about whether your staff a short-term cr to give more time on the broader budget deals what kind of where they are right now.

is that the sort of path where you see right now especially since there seems to be a number of other steps coming up towards the end? >> you do raise an important reminder that the admin is or should did put forward our budget proposal in early february. it's like a lifetime ago now. it was a series budget proposal for how in a fiscally responsible way the united states of america could fund our economic needs as well as national security imperative and the president is hopeful congress will come with something along those lines. congress is coming back from a long recess this evening and hopefully republicans will be ready to accept the invitation from democrats to sit down and get to work and be a top

priority. [inaudible] the u.s. embassy in south africa is warning of extremist threats to u.s. interests. the warning was pretty big. what is going on, what kind of threat. >> i don't have an update for you for more detailed information to share about that statement but i encourage you to check with the state department and if there is more we can share with you will follow a unit >> let me ask and the question then the president willing to shut the government down sequester spending levels. >> the president feels very strongly that congress needs to pass a budget on time, but also make sure our economy and

national security priorities don't have to suffer from the mindless austerity that was brought about in the sequester. the president has made clear they will not support legislation that locks in those sequester caps benacquisto economic and social securities. >> said he would veto a spending bill new-line to shut the government down unless congress agrees to lift a spending levels. >> the first visit is not at all clear to me that there is bipartisan support. it's not at all clear to me there is enough support in the united states congress to pass a budget that would block and sequesters ending. there's good reason for that.

obviously the vast majority if not all the democrats oppose that and there's a number of republican who would have serious reservations and maybe even what to support a thing like that. the president's position has been very clear he will not sign into law a budget bill that would lock in sequester levels of spending. [inaudible] >> i would speculate what sort of paths they will take. obviously a difference -- a temporary bill would be put into place to allow congress to get the additional time necessary to pass a longer-term budget. i would draw a distinction between those things without speculating what have congress will take. >> as they understand united states is taken to a hundred

syrians. >> i haven't looked to the numbers today that there are caps based on the country and the state department. >> given that there are 4 million syrian refugees, is not a hypothetically low number? >> when you consider the scope of the crisis, it is important to understand the scope of the u.s. was ron's. [inaudible] >> historically the united defense opened its doors and welcomed refugees and in this case 1500 out of 4 million. i want to understand the president has to deal with when it proposed by law. do you agree that it's a

shockingly low number? >> what is clear is the state department will take the lead inside the administration and reviewing options available to the obama administration for considering additional steps we can take to try to provide the significant and growing humanitarian crisis. >> difference to object. british governments say the proper way to help people is within their own country and you don't want to open the door to have more people risking their lives to calm. they have a lot of excuses for not taking more than they decided to take and 20,000 more. if you this tradition held the same way and the man the british government gave and are we going to now see something similar for

ideologically you feel the same way -- is it going to be sort of an alignment there? >> again, this is something that continues to be under active consideration by the administration print and play at the state department. what is true in some countries in europe deserve credit for the efforts they've undertaken in the hospitality shown by many european citizens who have generously was on dead to the desperate situation to human beings and that is something they deserve credit for. this is a complicated problem and one that i feel confident saying europe has spent quite a bit of time dealing with and the united states is urgently looking for ways we can further augment the already significant steps are taken.

>> when were talking about this last week, i think it was thursday, and your response was to list all of the ways we are really been buying on that kind of assistance and then he said europe has the capacity to take in a lot of these people. but all of a sudden yesterday we hear from the administration that we are actively considering a range of approaches. today you said we are continuing to look at it. i guess my question, the basis of it is what has changed in our approach now and if something is changed, why have they changed, even in the way you are presenting. >> i think michelle, what i would hope that you and your viewers would understand the significant steps the administration has taken to try

to address these things than the best illustration is the united states is the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to help syrian refugees who are in a vulnerable position. as a number of other steps taken and we applaud the e.u. presidency calls for the extraordinary justice council meeting legislated for this weekend and that certainly is an appropriate.. the united states is often looked to by the world to step up and play a leading role within trying to solve difficult and widespread problems in the current humanitarian crisis underway based on theory and fleeing the war-torn country would fall into that category and that is what is prompted the

administration and the president to consider additional steps beyond the extraordinary ones we've are to help those who are bearing the brunt of the burden. >> you will find the rest of the briefing on my at c-span.org. first day back for lawmakers and the first day for floor debate on the iran nuclear agreement in the disapproval legislation. 41 senators say they will support the iran agreement. more than enough to block a resolution of disapproval if they choose to. also at 5:00 eastern, nomination of the u.s. district court judge for the western district of missouri. the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god our king, we praise you for providing for our needs;