map of knowledge that served our country exceedingly well and he lived, he went sailing everywhere as president. here we are on the eve of world war ii in 1938 and franklin roosevelt signs up with us the smithsonian institute and goes to the galapagos to follow the trail of darwin. he disappeared for three weeks. [laughter] this was in 1938, world war ii doing collecting and you and say well theodore you still like to find new big elkin grizzly bear. they were looking for the smallest burrowing shrimp for this miss sony and institute. they got all sorts of new creatures and documentation about this incredible voyage to the galapagos in the middle of fdr's presidency on the eve of world war ii. >> they were great travelers, both presidents, it it must have

been in the genes or something because you look at the travel that teddy roosevelt did in the amazon area, that trip i believe believe almost killed him didn't it? >> here's an interesting fact for you to remember, theater roosevelt would get terribly seasick. he would vomit if he got on water. he had a bad stomach. he liked seen ahead of him, his favorite landscapes were flatland and prairie, now not only is ex-president did he go to the amazon and do this incredible journey and he went to africa and spent a year recording natural history of africa, i do not know if you realize that he came to your state and lived for a while in arizona hiking through the grand canyon he had saved. he then went and lived with native americas and wrote an

article, he participated in a rattlesnake handling ceremony on his way from arizona into utah to see rainbow bridge. that is how committed he was, as x the president he wrote a very distinguished scientific piece on the tortoises of florida. franklin roosevelt wanted to go to galapagos because a distant relative had written one of the best books about the galapagos pre-darwin. so the family had a real connection with the galapagos and fdr and harold hick us were trying to make the galapagos a world heritage park or jointly run between ecuador and the united states. fdr also wanted to have the big bend jointly run between the united states and texas, and

glacier jointly run with canada. these did not happen because by coming up the state department with complications but roosevelt, he was are ready system seen that echo systems don't know borders. they they cross over the river on both sides. if you're going to protect you have to refrain from artificial barriers. right before he died, the big issue that roosevelt was pushing was conservation is the basis of world peace. with the old forster and his father for it was old man near death, pincher and fdr post the altar at the time were to save the united nations were going to create a global standard of conservation, they were pushing to go that far, when fdr died, that movement whitman nowhere be cause truman's people came in and they were much more less idealistic.

less conservation conscious. less wanting to please the big corporations. in that kind of global environmental movement squelched. we could certainly use it right now. it is a pity that he did not get to live an extra year to get that done. >> what would they be thinking right now, the roosevelt that they could see today's conservation policies? >> i could tell you in if theater roosevelt were alive, or fdr, they would have brushed out the slate of candidates like dandruff. [laughter] these guys, roosevelt or giants, these guys because they put public service first, they were about aboumaking america really truly the special place to live. but theater roosevelt, keep in in mind that when he went to

africa, william howard taft fired gifford his forster that stayed on because he blew the whistle that they were coal mining in that national forest in alaska, that was the roosevelt reserve. pinchot got fired because they were letting cut companies out of seattle dude no money blown up the mountains in alaska because taft thought the conservation had gone too far. after tr came back and got the last laugh, he created the bullmoose party in 1912, split the republican party into and came in second and taft finished third. the most successful third-party movement in american history was the bullmoose party. incidentally, but franklin roosevelt once he got polio a

big thing was not to seem like a weakling and what he could do was build his upper body strength. he look like a big-time wrestler if you looked at his upper body because of all the late weightlifting he would do. on the high seas sport fishing, he had terrible health problems, today there might be something for him form but he had terrible sinusitis, all of the time which he would not have when he was at sea. with a little bit of sun, his polio condition and his health would go upward. he spent like one out of every four days of his president on water, he would go all over because he felt so alive and also they call it blue mind night nowadays, but if you live near water features it is supposed to help clear your mind and you are able to think clearly, it's why so many people are attracted to living on coastal areas and the like, he had that. he loved the ocean, salt spray,

he would use the ocean spray's now when they have sinus trouble just because that salt opens up the sinuses. >> let's start lining up for questions. i know you have a ton of questions for professor brinkley. while we are getting ready for a first question i want to ask you about the civilian conservation corps, talk a little about that. occasionally we hear that can be reinvented or reenergized, cranked up may be to help and clean up some of our national parks. some of your thoughts on that please. >> it was next ordinary success that civilian conservation corps and we could use something like that today. it is difficult because back then even unemployed men looking

for money they had to give their whole paycheck to their parents, even if you were 20 years old. money had to go back to your family, you are only allowed to keep a little of it for personal expenses. it wasn't public welfare, it was was hard work with the money going back home. one would get a sense of self-worth, they would get up, they would wear uniforms, they would work these hard jobs on roads and on for street all day in remote areas. i don't know if we created leisure ideas in american life. young people want time off, i have i have to go to this or that, i don't know if you could militarize conservation in that sense in today's generation. there are programs doing like the civilian conservation corps but it has not taken on the imagination of the public but i think it's a great idea to get young people involved with the state parks, have schools adopt state parks, were talking about nature deficit disorder but

people, kids do not know what the mountain ranges, they don't know the name of a tree, the name of their bushes near them, we need to teach natural history and high school or middle school so kids start learning to create a new generation of conservationists. what fdr did by training all of those young men, the principles of conservation they became conservationists who led the 60s environmental movement. there is a direct link to what fdr did into the environmental environmental movement of the 1960s, rachel carson was writing pamphlets on the sea for fdr's wildlife, i write about her in her book and later she writes silent spring, it's it's all going out of these new deal programs, the modern of our mental movement is really modern and bored out of the new deal. because even places like

maryland is where they started saying how do we bring animals back into the wild, how do we -- so they would raise beaver and they realize that beavers were needed for echo systems. leopold and his almanac delivered the famous wildlife conservation committee reports fdr. he hired leopold and ding darling, the great cartoonist and thomas back and they came up with an amazing wildlife conservation plan which said we have to go by millions of acres and eat them over to the species. we did that. part of my book, i think it is a victory for america that we got 550 wildlife refugees but the downside is people always wanting to dismantle it. they want to say it is not right and then we do not fund them.

we treat our heirlooms terribly. i'm hoping on the centennial of the park service we stand up and say we love our national parks, let's take care of them because it is a fraction of our tax dollars goes into these wonderful natural resources that we all get to share. we on these. we on the grand canyon and big bend. they are the envy of the world believe me. >> are grand canyon international park system. first question. >> i hear the koch brothers and their friends have assembled this almost 1,000,000,000 dollars to elect candidates who want to completely do away with all rules and regulations regarding the fossil fuels, fracking and all of this. it is really a scary thought. i'm wondering, does the other side of this, the people who are environmentalists, do they have funds and today have lobbyists, to the hip people that work to protect our land and to do these

things? >> as you all know and we are in 2016 election it is a battle and people want to continue to save these places. the national parks and not debated as much because congress passed them, it is a lots of these wilderness areas are national forest were trump, or ted cruz, or any republicans come in and want to immediately gouge those landscapes. they want a sagebrush rebellion. they want to go in the keystone pipeline became a metaphor for the kind of conservative movement believed to open up all these places that the federal government is controlling. don't kid yourself, the environmental movement groups are strong, whether it is a national park association or national park foundation, audubon, sierra, the wilderness society, one can rattle off a hundred of them. they do their job.

they bring consciousness. unfortunately it has become a little bit too partisan like democrats, people want to vote for hillary clinton's are environmentalists and republicans are not. theodore roosevelt was republican, john lacey was republican. ronald reagan who we do not think of as an outdoor person he signed 51 wilderness or 50 some wilderness areas. that's how far now, you think one of these guys running now are going to sign wilderness bills? the republican party has gone very extreme right and part of it is at the federal governments locking up these lands. this is what fdr came in strong when he did because we had to grow the grasslands because the dustbowl happened because of bad cattle ranching and just killed all the grassland. all the chapter was just going

and to keep water supplies going and keep places force it. >> thank you sir. so you have such an amazing grasp of the lives of these two men if you could speak to either one of them today what would you ask them? >> i would like to ask them what we can do to get out of the political gridlock we have americans turning on americans and it saddens me when we are a constant war with each other. i do not think it or neighborhoods neighborhoods it's that bad but our politics have gotten so terribly dysfunctional. i would also want to see who fdr would appoint to the supreme court to fill justice scalia. he

appointed the great supreme court justice on conservation, fdr did, william o douglas william o douglas of washington. fdr wanted douglas to be president. douglas was ahead of his time on issues pertaining to the environment and as it pertained to the american west in particular. >> you are a presidential historian and i will get to your question but you brought up the election of 2016. some of your thoughts ray quickly, have you ever seen anything like we are seeing today? is there historical precedents for this? >> the point of history is to remind ourselves that our own times are not uniquely oppressive. you have to go lecture on the civil war and you are looking at battle of bull run and the

confederates in the confederates one bull run and lincoln stuck in the white house. thousands thousands dead and the killing fields of virginia and maryland. the scorched earth of the south in civil war. it is hard to think donald trump showing you that his stakes are real. it becomes very childish in those ways. with that said, meaning we have had it worse, one has to admit this is a surreal, bizarre and i'm afraid embarrassing moment for our country where instead of his public service of the roosevelts, we are getting a bulgarian-ism of just the worst aspects of american culture coming to the forefront. it is due to many reasons, talk radio,.

1,000,000,000 reasons why why this is going on. i find it troubling when the press has about 15% approval rating in congress has a 10%. it's like people don't like congress i don't know who that 10% is who think they are doing that joe that conservation thing went up to protect the arctic and had a thing with the congressman when i was testifying with congressman young from alaska. he is a real conservative right wing guy who just drill baby drill of the arctic. i went back to my university and i thought i bet texas has a lot to big oil people and i just have been a bear same fight with this congressman. i heard from conservatives, you earned a spur, i don't agree with you with the issue but i'm

sure glad you told the congressman off. people just despise the dysfunction in washington d.c. right now that they will go with the bernie sanders who deals different or trump who is different just to send a loud message of dissatisfaction home. >> i grew up on a farm in north dakota, only only 2 miles away was a national wildlife preserve with all sorts of animals. i remember riding a bus to school in the winter and there was snow fences built by the ccc. into the 60s they were still admire. my concern is sustaining our parks. with the population population growing every year in america, how do we sustain them and keep them beautiful? >> great question. in my book i had to pull out so

much happened in north dakota and i did of the wildlife refugees i did a map of the wildlife refugees that i had to pull north dakota out separately because every 2 miles - mike the federal government came in and called it limited interest conservation programming just control that, that is the great bird breeding grounds right there in those. potholes of north dakota. we have got to continue to just love the national parks, get involved with be a friend of one of the parks, stay engaged a vote a vote for people in the senate, in congress and the white house that are going to prioritize. the deferred maintenance of our national, forget the parks, places like independence hall, it is pathetic, we are not

taking care of our historic structures. this is the first sign of national decay and decline when you cannot take care of your country's historic places. we have leaking rooms, mold, yet when people try to trim the budget down for the parks so let's hope we can get a sense of robust budgets and keep talking about that is what we need. love the national parks and be loud about it. >> they are our heirlooms. >> you point out in your books that fdr was an avid reader of maps, another hobby that he have and i am interested if you pointed this out, he was a very fervent stamp collector. every step tells a story story and many of those stories have to do with conservation. did you investigate that, how stamp collecting helped him with his thirst for geography?

>> if we didn't know better i would think that you are a plants. [laughter] it is a very major part of my book. he actually designed stamps. he would design them for the parks. he designed them for the glacier national parks where he would do drawings on little pencils and say i want to stand for the national park and made to look like this. he started a series of stamps for all of the national parks to bring consciousness to them. he did this stamp series because he declared 1934 the year of the national park. that's when he went to hawaii and up to glacier and did a live radio broadcast from glacier national park. that had never been done before, alive president from middle of a glaciers are fairly remote today to send a loud message that there's nothing so american as our national parks.

>> i have been collecting u.s. stamps for 50 years. i i had to read your book. thank you. [applause]. >> helen davis from atlanta, georgia. >> how are you doing. she did an incredible book on the ccc which is an extraordinary guidebook that she did with her husband and is he here? >> my husband, read davis. >> the davises and have done our country great service. remember they used to be the wpa guide that fdr would do all the places in america. nobody had done at ccc guidebook of any note, they took on that task. >> thank you. [applause]. i have a comment about the previous question. that is that the ten stamps that were done in 1934 to promote the

parks, those were photographed, five of which by george grant, he was the first chief photographer of the national park service. to will by ansell adams and three were by commercial photographers. george grant is one of the unknown elders of the landscape photography. our new book is about him. i had to share that. >> great. there were ten in the series, yosemite was one, right? can you give us a couple of the other. >> let me call my husband up because his memory is better than mine. >> zion became one of the big -- one of the things fdr did in utah was try to make it a -- do you know that i do high and utah voted for fdr all the time. they were giving public works jobs and trying to make national

parks so cedar breaks in utah, fdr signed that in august of 33 and then he did capital reefs with an executive order is a monument. today is a national park. he took arches which is a roadside a roadside attraction and turned it into a mammoth national park and took zion national park quadruple. the zion national park to enlarge the parks, these were all strategies. his secretary of war was a man named george durden and his first term. he was a democratic governor, environment conservationist from utah. he saw the advantages of trying to market it on tv. the you taught national parks

state, this was starting with fdr in turn. >> quickly, about the 10, i'm just curious because i would like to collect all 10. >> the very first one was el capitan and yosemite, adapted capitan and yosemite, adapted from a photograph ansell adams, it debuted in 234 and sold over 250,000 the first day. others were great smoky mounts, gradient tetons, glasser, zion, trying to look at the map, can katie up in maine, and as hell and sent to her by ansell adams. >> it was not just that national parks they did it all, they they did ducks stamps that were remarkable contents and the wpa posters for the national park which are now the retro in thing for the parks. it is like art deco looking, incredible graphic photographs of all of the parks which roosevelt -- >> we only have a couple minutes left. i'm curious curious -- >> my comment was, conrad werth

has said that in the nine years and three months they accomplish what might have occurred in 50 years without their labor. now the ccc is the grandfather of many groups that do work in parks and americorps, job corps, and other things like that. my comment is we have to remember that although we do not have the civilian conservation corps, we do have a lot of these other grandchildren of the ccc. we need to promote those and trying to get our young people to think about service, whether it be in the armed forces or service for our nation as a part of their formative years after high school. >> excellent comment. thank you very much [applause]. >> what is your favorite parker national monument? >> well they change a lot.

you go and it is your new favorite. right now, i would have to say it's an obscure one, canyon lands in utah. it was stewart whose papers are here at the university of arizona along with ansell adams photographs of the rare collection here, you'd all flew over that area and said my guy, if that's a national park if i've ever seen one. people are looking to dam the river there and so he started moving quickly to go to canyon land. i got to go back for the 50th anniversary of canyon land in 2000, 2014 to give the keynote speech at the park. they took me to see some of the special features there. it was amazing. i was very big on canyonlands but for new ones i'm hoping that

president obama signed the national monument in utah. it is a very important one for him to do before he leaves office. also the maine woods in the middle of maine, we have the woman who created bert's beeswax , she has acquired all of this land and to begin to to the national park service. i'm hoping we get a big parker monument in maine coming up now. i hope the arctic and it alaska and the arctic national wildlife area becomes a monument so it gets a permanent protection. >> we are going to have to wrap it up. i was over at volcano national park last may, that is something, something, that site

at night is something you will never forget. douglas brinkley, thank you all [applause]. professor brinkley will be signing copies of his newest book at about 11:30 a.m. that will be happening at the you a bookstore tent over on the mall. he is is going to do some national question q and a with c-span, we are are going to let >> i am a history buff.

i do enjoy seeing the fabric of our country and how things -- how they work and how they are made. >> i love american history tv. >> i had no idea they did history. that's probably something i would really enjoy. >> with american history tv, it gives you that perspective. >> i may c-spaö

>> twenty years ago telecommunications act of 1996 was passed which was a lot governing the privacy of telephone service and also the congressional internet caucus was created that year. incidentally, the top one song on the billboard top 100 was the macarena. [laughter] i don't remember what type of font i had what it was a

portable. it was a very, very different day. the congressional internet caucus was created that year to bring more attention to internet issues. this is really interesting collision of old and new and what we are here for. the fcc had a notice of proposed rulemaking. they want to do role to update this privacy rules for telephone providers. now with able call broadband service providers. we will explain that integrates the pros and cons of that. we will go through a lot of vitriol very quickly. the rules governing privacy for broadband service providers include folks to provide your cellular service, not the phone itself but the service i get here which is t-mobile. over your laptop or desktop which in my case at home is verizon files but here it's on the house public wi-fi. those are the types of searches, broadband service providers. these roles are covering them. let's go to my first question,

and jim arrived just in time for the people out there who, the non-question like that name sound with a modicum jim halpert, where do i know that from? you are probably googling jim halpert and the first thing comes up is that guy from the office. just we get this out of the way, jim is actually named, he is the inspiration for jim halpert from the office. >> that's right. you'll find thamuch less exciting than the acto for what it's worth i had dinner last night with a real anti-bernard was another childhood friend who was in town for world bank economic conference. but let's talk about how does a rose. the fcc has been trying to find a way to impose net neutrality requirements on internet access providers, and after a couple of, well, attempts, it decided to classify them as common carriers.

just by virtue of providing broadband service. when the original cpni law was passed, the internet access providers were considered independent, internet information services, and were not regulated at all by the fcc. this new classification through a quirk in the way the federal trade commission law works, are outside the authority of the federal trade commission. so before this net neutrality order, internet access providers were regulated and subject to the same requirements as anywhere else in the internet ecosystem for any of the business. just the fcc rule changing the way the service is classified for purposes of telecom, that all of a sudden we have this change in authority over internet access.

>> internet order, a.k.a., net neutrality? >> right. >> what is the commission proposing? a privacy regime including notice, telling people, consumers what the privacy rights are, choice, with you can opt in or opt out or keep them from doing that collection. and then security which is like are you going to keep my data secure when you collected. so what does the role specifically look like? and what is this cpni thing people and about? >> we don't know yet the exact text because it hasn't been released but based on discussions in public it sounds as though what the fcc would do is to require enormously long list of information to be provided to consumers. by way of notice about the data practices of the internet ipo services. and set up a multitiered set of

permissions, degree of opt in or opt out ther that would be requd for the internet access provider to use information that it obtained by virtue of providing this service to consumers. so there would be a very unusual opt in consent requirement for any disclosure of information to a third party. we'll talk about that, how that may be a little less than usual, but certainly from andrew uses of information for purposes, for example, of advertising or marketing. that would be sharply restricted unless requiring an affirmative opt in consent, and less the marketing was or something that was related to communications service. so an existing service that the consumer record. they would be an opt out for that sort of marketing. the default rule would be opt in with an opt out rules in place

for marketing, communications and services, or marketing of services through an affiliate. >> if i could just jump to laura. for the average consumer at home what does it mean for them to what does it mean for the privacy? what companies are the interacting that will be covered by this will? and kind of what is so unique about broadband service providers that we need such a rule? >> okay. i'll try to take those, i'll try to get to all of those. and just take you -- just to do a bit of background here, before we start like the consumers and accept what this means to them i think it's worth talking about what the objective is with respect to consumers of the law in the first place. this is something we probably discussed at length because i'm sure there would be differences among us panelists of what the primary goals of the statutes are here. but basically, this section of

the communications act that governs common carrier privacy, the privacy obligations of commentaries which in the past were phone providers now include broadband providers, essentially it had two goals. one was to protect the privacy of information that consumers have to provide the carriers to get service. so that's like when you're talking about common carriers you were talking about companies where their primary function is to carry the customers communication from one end to the other. so in that context if you're making a phone call or browsing the internet or using any online service, you have no choice but to provide certain information with the carries her about the traffic. so with a phone call yet to provide information about the phone number you're calling, the length of time your talking on the phone, et cetera. with internet traffic it's kind

of similar. you have to provide information about, that enables the broadband provider to run the traffic from one place to another. the customer pays the carrier for service and have to provide information about the communications in order to get that service. one of the goals of the law is to protect that information to basically to make sure that the information isn't in the use or other purposes other than to direct the traffic or to direct the calls without the customer's approval. the other objective is a competition based objective where one, the fcc, actually for decades prior to the 1996 telecom act had been regulating customer proprietary information or we will refer to this is cpni, had been regulating it on a competition based because there was this idea that if you have carriers that are seeing lots of information about

relationships that the customers have with other companies, by virtue of the fact that their customers are calling other companies, then there might be competition problems present at the carrier can use that information to give itself a competitive edge, to compete in other markets. a good example of this is with an alarm service or if you're getting some security from one provider danger phone company come if your phone companies charge offering a home security system, it knows who you are a customer of for home security to invite even of when you have an incident based on your call log. it might not often you're contacting customer service with it at home security system, et cetera, and that could be information that could use to gain an edge fort sumter these are kind of the two goals. for consumers now, now that broadband has been reclassified as a common carrier service, they can with writing recommendations one place to another, this means broadband consumers can expect to have a

very similar privacy framework to what has been instituted with respect to the information they provided to the phone carriers to they can expect consumer protections in place whether it's information they share with their internet providers. so the websites that you visit, the services that you are using that you're in contact with, the destination of your traffic and the origin of the, the direction and speed, the amount of traffic, that type of information, as jim described, will now be subject to this sort of multitiered consent structure. >> so that information would be protected in isp would not able to collect it because this will apply to sites like google, twitter, snapchat, or the apps on my motorola phone and operating system? >> that's a good question. just to address one part of that

though, these rules are not about collection. they are about use in general. because there is an assumption that carriers have to click of the information, that customers have to provide it to carriers, the carriers have to collect in order to provide the service. so yes, the aside, no, these rules don't apply, at least based on blue note about the proposal again as jim said, we haven't seen the text of the actual proposal yet based on what we know about it, though, it would not extend to edge services. so there are companies that provide both edge services and internet carriage, and when they are in the business of providing broadband access, then they would be subject to the fcc's rules that protect the information in the context, and when they're in the business of offering edge service. >> so thought i had in my hand, it would apply to my fitbit app,

wouldn't apply to my google mail, my pandora or even governing system at this happens to be in android operating system. the other you might've heard of, its ios by apple. >> that's correct, right. it would not apply to those other entities. this is just about broadband internet access service providers. >> let me ask whether katherine must awaken or anybody, what is so special likely what is so special about broadband service providers? is this regime similar or different to other privacy regimes that we have in the united states? we had a briefing down the hall last week on the eu and u.s. privacy shield. we had a vote on the european commission and dislike the reason we have to do this kind of entities because the u.s. has an inadequate level of privacy protection, in our opinion,

eating the european commission subpoena. what's so special about this particular broadband service provider? what do they see that is so special? >> thank you for the question. i think if you look out from the whole context of the data it's not so much it is particularly sensitive data but whole context. a customer who uses the internet at home or on the phone, there's a lot amount of data being collected. it is sensitive and detailed information and there's not that many options for a customer to sort of switch the provider or evade the situation. it's the amount of information detailed we need the opportunity for the customer to not go anywhere else. if you think about the kind of profile that can be collected about a user, a lot of important inference can be made about the

user. you can understand, for example, the usage patterns. you can draw conclusions about whether somebody for example, is unemployed because they are using their internet service more frequently during the daytime, and the kind of devices that are being connected to the internet, a game in a home setting, for example, a pacemaker or your fitbit. a lot of information that can be gleaned from that. it's the entire context that you to look at. i know the ftc looks at the sensitivity of the data and for example, with regard to health information, you should,, particularly sensitive so there's an often required. is important not only if it sensitivity but the next step is the purpose of the data. i think that's where we can get more when we talk about the proposed rules. it looks at the entire day of the data, what is it being used

for. i would be happy to go into the a little bit more. >> we'll come back to the two points about not being able to go to somewhere else, and also the sensitivity of the data, the uniqueness. let's go quickly to debbie. it would focus more on the ecosystem? that's a your members represent. >> so the mobile ecosystem as you know is, involves a lot of companies for providing this service, the isps. one of those countries that provide the connectivity but it isn't always the same isp when you're using your phone. if you think about you might connect your home wi-fi then when you're out you might take transportation to work you are on your network connection. once you get to work you might connect to your work wi-fi. usurer network connection at a park. throughout the day you're using more than one isp. if you take a look back at the original purpose of the privacy

law that we're talking about, the communications act, you look at the voice services market which is you have one phone company back in 1996. he made a phone call from else. they delivered it to someone else and that was the only company, you to companies, and everyone who was in that phone services market was covered by the law. here by applying that same law to internet service providers, you are only applying it to a tiny subset of the number of companies who are delivering internet service to you. so from the isps perspective it doesn't make a lot of sense and for the from a consumer's perspective it doesn't make sense because there's a lot of confusion that will ensue if you have one set of rules that you have the isps end of the companies were handling the exact same data, in some cases even more dated because, if you think about using your phone and you're bouncing around from one isp to another throughout the day, you might be locked into

some services throughout the day consistently no matter which isp you're using. if you have an e-mail provider, social network, you may be logged in that entire time so social networking no provider or search engine would be able to see all your activity of the day wears any given isp would only see a fraction of that. >> we have a difference of opinion between you and katharina. chasing the sensitivity of the data into judy. you're saying -- its unique picture saying it isn't all that different from what other apps or operating systems would collect. why are we being treated differently? is about the point of contention? >> i think so. the market has just changed so much. the smartphone has changed so much of the way we communicate. while in the 1990s when we first got the internet and it whenever i'm connection, h you t at your computer any work on the computer for a couple of hours and then maybe you turned your connection off because you're dialing, right? that we have always on

connection and you are seeing isps all over town, it's just a very different market. there is a lot of competition especially in the wireless market. think about when you're watching super bowl how many of those ads were for wireless companies time to get you to switch from one to another. very unlike the market with around back when islam was passed with a with a monopoly phone provider. >> i think one of the challenges is that in an overall internet ecosystem where there's potentially tracking of users in a variety of different ways, probably the simplest thing for consumers to understand is that they can go one place and opt outcome exercise control. if you read the legislative history of the cpni law that congress passed was part of the telecom act. the key concept was to give consumers control. control to me and opt out or coming and opting.

if you're in a market, there's a small percentage of markets in the united states where there's only one landline isp come if you can opt out you can still object and exercise your choice provided that specifically. similarly with the rest of the ecosystem on the internet that are self regulatory mechanisms like the digital advertising alliance opt out. one could work on that further and spread it, it's option even more broadly. and isps could be part of doing that, but it is order goes through the isps are to be subject to unique, for more restrictive set of privacy rules that apply to virtually any other sector in the united states and they would be separated out from and not be part of a unified system where consumers would have control. consumers made understand and probably will understand the opt

in request they get from the isp doesn't apply to anyone else in the internet universe. >> go to katharina or laura. if we get clever about opt in or opt out is the opt in is basically like the isp has to say to the customer, we will provide this service and we will use this information in the following ways and here is. do you want to? you have to do something but basically it's like yes. so that's opting to opt out is they do it, provide you notice generally anything if you said i don't want to do that, you can click on something us as exempt me from the. that's basically it. this is an opt in regime, and why should this be an opt in regime court can you defend the portion? >> these are really important distinctions. often requires an affirmative action to opt out assumes you don't have an objection which, you know, okay. i think what the fcc right now

is supposing we know this from the fact sheets so we give some idea what they have in mind is sort of these three buckets with regard to the use of the data. the first bucket, you do when you ask the customer to do anything because you might need that data to user maintenance or for security purposes. and also for a service that is for marketing, using the data for marketing for the same type of service that the customer already has your again, no action is needed. so let's say you have a certain data plan and you need an upgrade, so no further action is needed. when you then look to the opt out regime that they are proposing, making it a look at the user data to it is for marketing communications related services. these are the use of the data that you signed up for a particular purpose now, isp wants to market you related service. seems to make sense you'd expect

a customer would be interested, it's related. there's a certain expectations that make sense to say we assume you are okay with this and tell you tell us otherwise. the third bucket really is for any other purposes, to use the data for any other purposes. i think it's fair to say you cannot assume the customer is okay with that unless they tell you that from a deadly gas i would like for you to tell me what i think you could offer me. and i agree to that kind of practice. i think it to look at the purpose for the use and that's a really critical. i think that's sort of a fair proposal. >> that kind of scheme is found, i don't think that's ever been anywhere in the rest of the marketing roles that apply to companies in the united states. that's on. now it's on. so if you think about the company that is offering you closing and decide to go into

the shoe business, to go into a completely different business, they are selling hardware or something, they are fully able to say we saw you bought some clothing and would like to say something completely different, they are not restricted from doing it. on understanding the sensitivity of marketing different kinds of products and services especially when customers probably want to get discounts on different products and services that account he might offer an example of that coverage is just me or the day before spring came out with a new offer that you can get amazon prime either month as well as amazon prime for the year. this wit would be a benefit if u want to amazon per se because the season, free shipping, for example, during christmas season and you don't want to pay for it for the love you. spritzer would be potentially, i don't know, these rules are unclear, we haven't seen them yet but without able to market that to the customers unless the customers just know about this new offer him a less the

customer had set up want to get marketing offers from you, as opposed to sing here's a marketing offer for amazon on a monthly basis. it's october, get ready for christmas shop and the customer can say i don't want that, maybe i will tell them not to send it to me anymore a lot of customers will say that's great you. it doesn't give them a choice if they have to affirmatively say back in february when he signed up for service that they want marketing e-mails or not. how are they going to know the amazon offer will be so great for them? >> i would challenge this argument that we don't have anything like this anywhere else in the u.s. privacy regime because of course the most obvious place would have a similar framework is with respect to phone information, with respect information or share with your phone carriers where there's a very similar privacy regulatory framework that applies to that information to the information that a customer shares with their phone

provider or the phone provider has access to solely by virtue of its relationship. the phone carriers can only use on an opt out basis for marketing related service at the it's an opt in basis for marketing of unrelated services. and again i think there's a couple things. one is a few talking about what the privacy justification for the type of regime is, it's important to remember that privacy is context specific. consumers feel their privacy has been violated when the information is used by the the context or in violation of the norms that they apply to the way they thought the information would be shared and the context in which they first showed up with a provider. and we do see, and the phone context or in the internet context, where consumer is sharing information with a carrier for purposes of routing

traffic, or for purposes of routing phone calls, they expect the information will be used in that way and not that it will be used for marketing purposes. we see this in other types of information, a context where consumers have no choice but to go through a particular provider for service we think is generally essential like health. >> let's unpack that a little bit. in the united states we have this patchwork. i'm not saying that in a negative way but with different types of regimes for different types of privacy. for instance, congress passed the cpni flaw in 1996 which are being updated no. we passed gramm-leach-bliley. red tape of that, health information privacy act, and those related to generally non-internet types of data. really the only major legislation that we have really, whether to enter premise is the

children's online privacy protection act that's the with kids online and that's very specific. lastly as an overlay, jim mentioned, correct me if i'm wrong, a government expert, with the federal trade commission section five act. they consider somebody says will protect your privacy, do it this way and not give your information to a user for this, if they kind of make a promise that they failed to follow up with a whether online or off-line, the ftc which is the other cop on the beat can come in and say you didn't do what you told the customers you would do regarding their privacy and will stop at $29 fine on your. >> furthermore over the democratic controlled white house and the majority democratic controlled ftc issued reports on privacy the way that they don't privacy should work in the united states, have established a bunch of best practices that are widely followed in the business

community. and both of those thought that there should be no choice whatsoever offered with regard to first party advertising, not opt in, not opt out. the eu data protection regulation which you've heard privacy discussion last week, europeans think is way tougher than u.s. privacy law, does not require an opt in consent for first party advertising. so this part, this first party advertising aspect of the cpni rule is, would be a tough is our most extreme restrictions on use of data by entities that you as a consumer have a relationship with in u.s. law. if it were to go through without qualification. in the health context that our limits in some aspects, first party advertising or he could wd become go dr. kent come here and

say hey, you should use this drug instead of that drug. they can put up signs but they can't use your information to go proposed that to you. but if you go to a hospital, some of you may have had to do that for good reasons or bad reasons, and to check into a hospital. you get marketing communications from the hospital because they know you've been to the hospital and mr. offering you other services and other things through their hospital. this would be a limit on on offering, existing types of services that the broadband isp currently offers two consumer with some small types of upgrades. to give you an idea of how that's different or how that made sense in the context of the telephone network which war was talking about before, as in 1996 when the telecom act passed, from the way the internet is today, he did to think about what the competitive purpose of the cpni law which laura described second. it is then comes the reader the

cpni law, there are requirements on the incumbent carrier, and telephone company to disclose to competitors subscriber list so the competitors could go marketed in and try to get service or they can shift service over if they choose to sign up with a competitor to are restrictions against trying to win back customers. if a customer decides to switch to a competitor. the competitive concern, if you look at the original cpni rules tom kean template which has all these, your local telephone company, which had all these customers, would use that information to try to do keep large control of the market in the context of the telephone network which was a closed network, there was no question about advertising. there was no advertising over the phone network. we are now in a very, very different world in the internet where there is a lot of

advertising, and this would effectively be saying only for this category of people need opt in. >> you are saying two things. coming off of my comment about different types of privacy regime for different types of data, you were saying no fair, that isps are held to a higher standard jeopardy of the privacy regimes. >> and more important a confusing speed and customers can get the offers that they're getting from other companies. >> at the competitive environment under which the original cpni rules passed, i'm not saying this, you're saying they seem not to make sense. let me ask you to respond to that. >> with regard to the consistency, consistency and clarity. ctc and host of public interest organizations active in this space can we have long advocated or baseline privacy legislation for the entire players in the space. but absent such legislation

which is unlikely to come anytime soon, and with the ftc having the authority and responsibility to protect the privacy of broadband customers, we feel they have to take that step and that's an important step. we will see what has happened afterwards. but that's the sort of the context you operate in. we feel the consistency is important goal, but it is not for the sake of consistency. we want to protections, standards that we customers to have had control over the data. just to pick up on this control peace, i think we have to look a bit at the evolution of the space and we have, yesterday the commissioners, many of them cited the pew study that came out earlier in the year and there's another study from the annenberg school at pennsylvania that talked about how customers, internet users have lost sense

of control of the data. they every site. they feel they don't trust institution in this space. so i think for the purpose of robustness by the economic develop in people really wanting to engage with this technology companies important to give customers and users and citizens a sense of control over their data back. >> if you give control to customers over a tiny segment of certain companies that hold the data, when the data is flowing freely to the rest of the system to get a false sense of security perhaps that i have opted out or opted in to certain things and it's going to apply across the board when it's not. all those other companies, not the countries that directly interact with like social networks and search engines of the companies behind the scenes, the networks they've never heard of, data brokers. they may not appreciate that the operating system that's on the phone using all the data existing in an unencrypted way. isps as we talked about, a lot

of unit is becoming encrypted. so the isps are unable to see any of the david that's encrypted, and at the same time the other companies on the internet can see that day. so there's a real disparity, it's the sort of like taking a howitzer and shooting it at a mosquito. is like a tiny little segment of the echo system and all that david will go everywhere. >> i think there's a desire by the company to an understandable one, to try to make it sound like isps and other companies that operate on the internet that are collecting information and marketing with it are the same type of entity and the consumers of the same type of relationship with them but they don't. consumers pay the isps to provide them with service. they pay the isps to get them

connected to the internet. once they are on the internet they make choices about what services are going to use online or on the internet, or however they're using the network. but as an initial matter they have no choice but to go through an isp in order to get onto the network in the first place. that is different. there's a different value exchange where they are exchanging money in a subscription, generally in a subscription context for access to the network and that's what they're paying for. that's what they expect they're getting. there is a difference with respect to the fact that to go through an internet access provider to get on there. like i can choose whether or not to use a free e-mail service were i understand that i'm sharing information about my communications with e-mail provider. on ensuring that information in exchange for getting e-mail for free, but i can choose whether

or not to build a relationship with an isbn sure lots of super sensitive information about my communications with them to get on the network. >> what you are suggesting is at least in part, this is only in the first part of what you're suggesting, is that consumers and customers and people using the internet have come to this convention of expectation of privacy, but if they pay for services, that they want to just get that service. but for the free services on the internet like twitter or facebook or snapchat, there's a built-in assumption that they are bargaining for free something, maybe it's perhaps -- >> i'm not necessarily saying that is always the case think there probably situations, i think it is questionable in some situations where the people understand that the information they're providing will just be used in whatever, they clearly don't read privacy policies. they don't mess with understand how the information will be used

in exchange for free service. i do think the relationship they're building with their broadband internet access service provider is one which they believed that the relationship is one where they have subscribed to a service specifically to go on like that that's the service they think they're getting. it's not an advertising service. >> chairman wheeler said in a statement most of us understand the social be we join, the websites we visit collect personal information and use it to advertise. he suggested which were suggesting that you were not suggesting a strong as he is suggesting it? >> in some ways it is and it. a question but yes, i do think in general people probably understand more about how the information will use or at least considered in the context of considering an optional service and cance consider to engage inn optional service than when engaging in asserting that essential. to the point of first party uses of data, again, they are different types of service. you can expand come if your

company to provide internet service and want to expand into advertising, that's fine but you don't have to write necessarily to use the information you've collected in the context of routing traffic in the broadband access service. you don't have a right to use that information to build his other business. if you saw a health insurance company expand its business into advertising, start moving into whatever, startup and advertising arm because it's a giant and has lot of money and wants to move into advertising, you wouldn't say okay, go ahead and come this is first party use of information can use all the information that you about insurance spent we are talking up in versus opt out. we are not sin saying ever righo do without any choice. we are just saying why should consumers have to choose specifically to get better deals on products that might want to get? why can't they just get the offer and if they decide they

don't like these offer similar they can opt out just like it is for all of the other companies in the ecosystem? there's nothing unique about isp offering the deal. so uber has caused them to drive you rent and all of a sudden they start offering uber eats. >> just in terms of framing this debate that choose to opt in to get better offers or additional offers, i think what a lot of the folks i get and the public interest community and the civil rights groups have pointed out that this data can also be used to disadvantage you. it's not always about you getting great new offers but that there might be information gleaned from you that might be to disadvantage. i think that's what makes a lot of sense that people want to have control over that. >> first of all the naacp president is witnessing it didn't make sense to focus on

this particular area or secondly a lot of the advocacy for this proposal and even the logic what the fcc has said is, well, there might be particular uses of information which are unfair to consumers discriminatory, intrusive. the way that the federal trade commission approaches this is to say there needs to be opt in for specific types of users. laura also equated an isp just a few minutes ago with a hospital or health care institutions that are open to health care advertising network. that under -- >> i didn't say -- >> due to an analogy. the point here is that if there is sensitive data that is being obtained through provision of internet access service, under the old federal trade commission framework was a fran frame up tt applies to the rest of the internet ipo system come and make sense for the sec now but it has done something

regulatory, but it rolls its roots, should apply the same set of standards which would be opting for use of health data, prohibition against use of information in a way that what this commit against consumers, probably if it was analysis of absolute all the data that travel through a system, that might also be worthy of opt in consent. but instead what we are seeing in this proposal is opt in consent is the requirement for all of these buckets of users regardless of whether there's any health data and any discrimination or anything else. we need to take it off the table for purposes of the purpose of, because it would be much more narrowly tailored exercise to focus on things that actually might cause some consumer whore. from what we know about this proposal it also applies, not information that contains your name but information that could be used to identify you. so it's very, very broad. all the data that internet

access provider might have that might be linked to your account, even if it is not, in fact, linked. that's a huge amount of information that could be subject to a lot of regulation. >> we are just scratching the surface. i do want to do that on two points but before we want to go to questions from the audience, before believe i would just ask you to explain, what happens from here before we leave? what is the role of congress in this entire rulemaking process? since they originally wrote the law. any questions from the audience? john. he will bring the microphone over to you and it will not go to the speakers but it will go to the network and so just talk away. >> two of you have emphasized the fact that there are different rules for different players, but the, if what you want is the same rules as you were, the sec can get event.

they have title and authority over commercial broadband internet access providers. didn'they don't have authority r starbucks when they provide me internet access. the only way to get that this legislation. so are you calling for the congressional staff in this room, are you calling for broad-based privacy regulation across all of these legislation across all these providers? >> so you want to opt in for privacy legislation from congress or do want to just opt out of this fcc rule? >> i think you be clear, the previous fcc requirements which can be placed into regulations under the sec's own framework, there's a proposal that was submitted to the that. there is nothing to stop the fcc, if it's going to, as it is for posting, talking about regulating all information, not just cpni that is received by

internet access provider. if it has the authority to do that, it certainly has the authority to go beyond the structure of cpni and to replicate essentially the fcc framework, with options for use of sensitive data, options for prohibitions against disclosing any information that might be used for profiling or for ways that might discriminate against data. all that is within the fcc's authority it as it says they can is going to regulate all customer information. >> there are two ways to do this to answer your question. you could pass legislation and has been support among many in the industry to have one overriding privacy law december 5 everything in the united states. that's certainly, not all industries are unified behind that but there are some. but i think what jim was saying come to harmonize it with the ftc's for them is a good way to go because the ftc's from has

resulted in very strong enforcement actions against huge companies. i'm not going to name them but huge companies you've heard of the last for 20 years and provide with strong protection. at the same time there's enough flexibility in the framework, unlike what the fcc is proposing have enough flexibility to allow for all new kind of information we'vwe seen over the last 20 yes in internet. that's been the model supplied across the internet so far. to drive people into very restrictive scheme where there's lots of specific notices and very arcane choices is not going to put any kind come in will make it really hard to make innovation around isps. i think that sisters question to ask how we want to move, what direction you want to go? to quantico more prescriptive for everybody or do want of a flexible system that is served his country very well especially compared to other countries that maybe haven't had as much innovation. that about silicon valley. >> the question going on in my view, for 18 years, very, very

strongly. before believe john's question let me go to katharina. john suggested, why didn't you go up to the hill and ask for privacy regulation across the board and opt in. with the center for democracy technology support under the privacy legislation on the hill and would it be opt in or opt out? >> we've been on the record of course that we would support based on privacy legislation, and i think we would have to look again at this particular context of the day in the purpose of the data whether it's opt in or opt out. it would have to be differentiated. >> if i can just add, it's worth noting that these are not mutually exclusive options. it may be the fact, and i would argue that it is the fact, that it is appropriate to have high standards for internet service providers because of this special relationship that they have with consumers. is relationship where you want to encourage consumers to build

this relationship, to get on the network, to be willing to connect and then to consider the services that they want to use online accordingly, but not to be afraid to take the first step to get online because they are concerned about these possible practices that isps might be engaging in. opt in framework is great for that because the default is privacy protection. do nothing, go online, build a relationship with your isp, do nothing and would be very strong protections for your information to the information that you have to provide divergent of a carrier customer relationship. information yo you provide in te context maybe it's appropriate to have a different framework but not in this context. that's not mutually exclusive with perhaps meeting is on privacy legislature to protect information that is sensitive, maybe it's being used already in ways that consumers don't agree with and maybe the ftc's from is not adequate addressing.

>> that might have made sense back when there was one isp per person. as i was saying there are some isps and so much competition in the marketplace, but the isps compete for this kind of business. it's different now than it was back in 1996. i appreciate your point it's just the market has changed so much. >> no matter where you are you are going first to an isp and an online. >> you're going to the free wi-fi hotspot that's not regulated so they can quit and user data in? >> if you look at what consumers do in the course of a day, to access the internet at work. to access the internet at home. to access the internet on their smart device. they make a to a bunch of wi-fi locations. none of those entities have all that much information in the context of the way that consumers are using the internet

today. >> i don't think that's true. >> you are positing what internet or via with a special relationship. think about how come when i connect to the house wi-fi, i'm interesting the data that flows through endless i put in vpn come when i connect at starbucks, same thing. this is not the world of 1996. i think you are positing a special relationship here is, is, without polling data to support it, is questionable. but also you have in any given situation if you have a customer that's paying a lot of money, you are going to be very cautious. i think you see most of the isps being very cautious about advertising. >> is that to your satisfaction? any other questions ask wait for -- >> thank you. i find a lot of inconsistency in

your arguments, and you say these offers are so valuable consumers will just feel terrible if it wouldn't be able to get these sprint or whoever. if it's a wonderful, why are you so assume that consumers would not be jumping at the chance to opt in? >> they made understand what it offers going to be. be. so let's you sign-up for service in january with a new isp and they say would you like to opt into marketing offers? i don't know. they said they'll be great marketing office but they can specify what they are because they don't know what are you. back then comes october and is a great marketing offer for free shipping on amazon or something. they can't make that offer because you have not opted in. i just understand how they're going to how consumers are going to what offers are before the offers are even out of there. >> i don't mean to hijack your question, but what is the practical effect of opt in versus opt out? we are throwing them around

pretty casually. >> how does it hurt to get an offer? that's the other part i'm not clear on, like just getting an offer and you end up not taking you. you get offers all the time. [inaudible] >> because i assume if amazon has been about to offer this is something they're doing on the basis of some kind of deity, whether let's say you bought a high-end data package come you never use. okay, then maybe you'll buy a high-end delivery package in a high-end video package and not use it that much, increase the profits to amazon, but some consumer could really use this wonderful per month thing for december or whatever. they're not going, it would basically be redlined spiff why do you assume that? what is the interest and not trying to get as much of the market as you can? >> you want to get the part of the market that geisha profit.

that's why use of the day to find a part of the market where -- >> you are supposing, you are supposing that there isn't an interest in serving middle and low income consumers. if you look at the money, for example, comcast is putting hundreds of millions of dollars to wire low income neighborhoods so that they could broadband. >> that was your -- >> it could be something else but you just don't know what it is. i'm not saying this isn't a wonderful opportunity for consumers. that's not my point, but to assume there will always be nefarious conduct in advertising is, wouldn't really be economically rational. >> it also would apply to the entire advertising ecosystem of which isps are a player. most of the online advertising and 70% is backing companies and none of those companies are isps.

>> katharina at lower are dying to answer the question. >> i'm pretty confident that companies can get pretty creative ways to explain the value propositions that companies, why customers should opt in if it's an option they will have to make that extra step. but opt out, basically you don't have to do a whole lot. again the assumption is until the customer objects, you can market. i'm pretty confident that companies -- >> i'm sorry come if i can just add, i think it's also worth noting that again, this regulation that is title ii privacy regulation, the regulations that apply to internet service providers or are being proposed apply to internet service providers, and again we haven't even seen the text and we're not quite sure where it's going to go to a lot of these are great questions that will be addressed in comments in the record. this is activities-based

regulation. it is not entity-based regulation. what that means is if the company is both an internet service provider and the operator of an advertising network, then it can continue to operate under the ftc's generally, jim opt out framework with respect to privacy regulation in this area what it is engaging in advertising. it just cannot use the information it is collecting from its broadband customers in the context of providing broadband services that broadband customers are getting it to route the traffic for that purpose alone. it can't use that in advertising context without opt in consent. >> we are running out of time. if anybody has got to really burning question they want to ask. i want to finish with pashtun i didn't get to -- there would be a lot of questions about how much, and this goes to the heart of the question, how much, the unique perch the isps and broadband are fighters have with regard to data.

you with your debate about how much can they see. people are accessing at wi-fi at mcdonald's or accessing the house public wi-fi or a lot of the data is encrypted. that's a question we don't have time for today but you a lot about that one. i will ask you to ask a lot of questions about that because there are differences of opinion. the other one is where does it go from here? i'm so we don't have the text of the nose of proposed rulemaking but from what i understand there's like five questions in the text beyond what you think about the rule. what's the process from here? just good if i can ask if you do say. what is congress' role but they crafted the darned thing. >> we are going to get the rule shortly. there is no consensus, exactly today maybe, maybe next week or the end of the two commentaries and it will extend to a good half of the summer and will be an opportunity for companies,

customer advocates, other interested parties to make, members of congress to comment on the record. congress is faced with a fractured set of laws that apply to some companies are not apply to others that are holding the same day. i think congress does have a strong role to play to smooth this out and make sure the data is what protected, not just a big fat cell by certain companies. >> we will be seeing hearings over the summer on this and probably a lot more discussion on the about those rules. is that fair to say? >> yes. i will touch of one last parting comment would quickly. >> one thing to think about is whether you are satisfied with the members of you before, satisfied with the speed and availability of broadband in your congressional districts. in connection with that think about whether you want a unique

pretty burdensome regulatory structure to apply to use of data that is obtained from providing those services. and then think about how easy it is to set up an internet advertising business with almost no capital investment and think about what that might do to invest in your district. >> i'll just touch on that point we didn't like it too which is encryption. this is a debate that's much broader than just because encryption is everywhere. there is more encryption. the more encryption with going forward, the less isps are going to see and veterans are very clear in this direction. just think about the azure thinking some of the other larger encryption debates come out of what impact this proceeding because to regulate isps more when they are seeing less and less than a week because more companies are encrypting is a question that needs to be considered. >> is really excited about the debate because we think this is

a really important debate for our society at large, i would encourage every to broaden this to your constituencies and educate people and get involved in this debate. it just really touches upon some fundamental issues. the more educated we are the better. so thank you for holding this. >> as my final parting thought i would give, i think it's important for us to think about ththe justifications for some of the really strong privacy laws. it's to protect relationships where we really want people to have come to engage freely with an entity at a free and open communications. that's why we have strong health privacy laws that people will go to their doctors and the afraid to talk to their doctors about their health status. it's why we have lawyer client confidentiality which many of us in this room i'm sure are well aware of.

so that clients feel free speaking candidly with their lawyers. it's a reason to have strong privacy laws that apply to internet service providers, that people can take that step of going online and know that the traffic is rerouted through an isp without being concerned about how the information will be used. >> i'd like to thank the congressional internet caucus co-chairs. thank the families and thank you, everybody for coming. thanks so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> tonight on c-span from the supreme court cases that shape our history come to life with the c-span series landmark cases. our 12 part series exports real-life stories behind some of the significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall in marbury v. madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up political structures that it's also a law that if it is a law we have the courts to tell and that's binding. >> it is the ultimate anti-presidential case did exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make decisions about those debates. and lochner versus new york the supreme court said it should make the decisions about postdebate spin after that will look at the case that upheld the

comments force removal of 120,000 people of japanese dissent from the homes from the west coast to internment camps. korematsu v. united states, tonight at 10 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend booktv, television for serious readers. ..