been an become solace in the early '90s in the run up to the iraq war, the first iraq war, that is one of the constitutional tools they can use. >> yes, you understand the executive branch is argued with respect to the production everything that might be since it is we can't give it to you because you believed it. >> that's the argument no matter what. whether they leaked it or not that's the argument if you look at who is leaking the most harmful stuff recently, it's all executive branch. military, edward snowden was an essay. this is, that's the art but that's the art of their goodies but they will use that argument whether it's true or not. >> nextstep, we have the vice president of the constitution project with a few remarks, but before we get to scott about you, please join me in thanking this really distinguished panel. thank you all. [applause]

>> thanks very much. i have to say i didn't think that was the discussion i was going to follow. in any event i just want to take two or three minutes to offer a few concluding observations on the basis of what i think were too terrific panels today. and i want to start by taking a step back to comment -- comments senator levin at the outset. an effective and well functioning oversight system is critical to our democracy. we avert several panelists at the it's important to both congress and the executive branch, and in that regard it should be important to all of us not just the media stakeholders in the process. we've heard different folks on both panels sort of touch on some of what makes high quality oversight and the kind of obstacles that stand in its way. it's worth highlighting a few of those on our way out. particularly given the moment in time that was like on the first panel, congressional presidential elections coming up

with uncertain results are particularly the time to reflect on all of these issues. some of the characteristics of high quality oversight i noted to identify. probably the number one, it's fact-based are not politically driven. that it's not partisan, so it has sort of an objective legitimacy to it. that is bipartisan, though josh might disagree that's an important condition. that it's in depth, so that there's a mechanism for if there's an investigation for oversight, there can be follow up, there can be regular monitoring beyond whatever the initial sort of investigation is. that executive branch folks who are the subject of oversight feel like they are being treated fairly, even if the process is adversarial. some of the challenges or obstacles that i noted that folks raised, low quality oversight might of been the most

repeated one. when the executive branch fuels or there is some object of that the oversight is political driven for that it is unduly burdensome in some other way, that it is a bipartisan. again josh, accepting you out. insufficient resources our capacity for committees and staff for the members who are carrying this out. andy's point about is they're just an inherent philosophical difference between the branches in terms of the roles and responsibility with respect to oversight. i think both of those sort of characteristics of high quality oversight of the challenges and obstacles that stand in the way suggest some potential conditions for facilitating the oversight going forward. i think some of them will be obvious for my flight already.

avoiding low quality partisan oversight. in part i think senator levin part i think senator levin flagged of is that the outset, so that courts don't have to step in and fix rights and responsibility on both sides in ways that neither branch they find acceptable going forward. making sure committees have experienced professional staff with appropriate resources and training. ways to build relationships between executive branch personnel and the committees to oversee them. maybe there needs to be more opportunity for that if staff turnover is happening at a rate that it wasn't previously. and then i think what i find interesting that was brought up numerous times is not the sort of 80/20 problem. if 20% of the osha is what the public sees, and a lot of the really sort of problematic for what the public feel this is pan driven oversight is ineptly%, they don't know about the 80% that's working. is there a way to raise up to

the 80% so people see that as more of a functioning democracy and so that the lessons learned from the 80% that perhaps are not leading into the 20%. so again, it's an important time to be thinking about it. as david said these are not issues that we sort of dough into in depth today and is gone the scope of this conference but i do think -- hope we can have. this one was wonderful. i hope that various stakeholders who i know are in the room and who may have tuned in remotely will think seriously about the stuff and the ways in which they can help facilitate more effective oversight the next congress and administration to come. and with that i want to again thank the to again thank the levithelevin center, senator lel of our panelists, the pew center for hosting us. please join in thanking all of them. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a few missed any of this discussion you can see it in its entirety at the c-span video library. go to our website c-span.org. coming up in just a few minutes of panel discussion on whether technology in the so-called shared economy will eventually make the idea of ownership obsolete. this comes to us from the new america foundation. live picture. weeks back is to get underway in just a couple of moments. live coverage on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome. i'm will oremus, senior technology writer for slate. we are to talk about whether technology will make ownership obsolete. this is a production of future tense which is a partnership between new america, arizona state university in slate magazine that explores emerging technologies at a transformative effect on society and public policy.

central to this partnership is a series of events in washington, d.c. and new york city and slay. in addition to content published on slate we have launched the hybrid of journalism and digital learning what each month a new technological idea, and break it down. we asked what's the state of the science? who are the researchers leading the development? what are the primary ethical and policy debates involve? and the theme this month is the end of ownership which serves as a misprision for this event. a couple housekeeping items. please silentio cell phones. we will have some q&a at the end of each panel. during the q&a will be live stream present so please wait for the microphone before you start speaking or else no one will be able to hear you. and make it come in the form of a question with a question mark at the end. .net? question, all right. you can follow the discussion online using hashtag ftownersh

ftownership. now i'd like to invite the speakers our first conversation to the stage. our first speaker is lauren belive, senior federal government relations manager. welcome. we have holly maine, senior director of mid-atlantic sales for spotify. welcome. and susan lond, partner at mckinsey global institute. welcome, susan. our first conversation is titled why own anything when you can access everything? i'm going to sit down and we can start our conversation. >> all right your lauren, let's start with you.

cars are an exciting space right now. carr said much the same for decades. the industry is changing fast. talk a little bit about the future of cars, at which change, how fast it's changing and what might not change? what might change of what might not change in the next decade or two in terms of whether we buy cars, whether the cars drive themselves and what that means for our ownership and a relationship to cars. >> first thank you so much. i'm so pleased to be here right off the bat, i get the same question probably every single day, what's the difference between lyft and turn one. in constant how we were founded are trying 107-b attacks altered and they stand with lunch with like ours. lyft was founded to be a full alternative to car ownership. we have two cofounders who were standing all these different inefficiencies in the market, or

80% of seats and i was are empty and people own these assets but they're only using it for% of the life of the car. the other 96% of the time the car remained part. we think the what car ownership means today, people spent on average $9000 a year on cars, when you think about gas, maintenance, insurance. when you look at how the trends are changing in the american cities today, you have millennials that are moving into cities, getting more and more of the market buying power. do you think they would like to have the burdens of ownership or perhaps the access to services and services of rights to technology? it's been a very interesting way that it is happening already organically. in 1983, the year i was born, 43% of 16-year-olds got the driver's license. in 2014 only 24% of 16-year-olds

got the driver's license. that was something i was 100% sure i wanted i turned 16. you starting to see this happen organically. with lyft what we've been seeing is a trend towards a self-driving car and we see it as a way to help eliminate these inefficiencies in the market. if you think 96% of the time a car is parked, that means you have cars in cities, on roads and in parking spaces just sitting unused. if you can reimagine cities and the way people utilize cars, we can get rid of parking spaces and that could be a real way to bring more commerce into cities instead of parking, have parks more housing for people. we are excited to see what that means. at lyft we believe in urban environments people will stop owning cars completely by the 2025. so that's a fast timeline but it's one that i think is well on its way. >> what about in suburban and rural environments?

>> that's something we'll see the trends go a little more gradual and i think with the deployment of autonomous vehicles, first you see this environment likely come and as the technology grows richer and protection becomes more concrete you will see that move as though. >> we had news to the of the first self driving truck shipping 50,000 cans of budweiser about 101 miles down the highway. but i should note it was following a path that event very well mapped out for them to reasonably doesn't police cruiser followe following behin. we are a bit of a ways. policy, can you talk about the trends in music ownership to music as a service? >> so i think there are a lot of similarities to some the things lauren touched on but i think for spotify we were in the streaming business before streaming started to become

mainstream, which is what it is today. we are a 10 year old company, swedish and its roots, a we feel happy to see streaming started to pick up because we then waiting for that to start happening. our general feeling is that with the consumption driven primarily by millennials and added have technology and smart phones and the devices we are really all of us as individuals are dependent on, that we are able to bring more music to more people with more diverse backgrounds a people that may not have access to it or even knowing that they like it, certain genres and things like that to more people than were ever able to do when it just came down to buying that cd or by that piece of vinyl for those of us that are my age. final is coming back. so the adage what's old is new again. we feel from our position that we are seeing all those things

start to pick up, and that there's not, we have to tears. if people do want to pay for something and kind of owning more custom pieces of music they can do that. but that's, the trend to launch point, people want what they want when they want it and they wanted customizable and is more about experience than it is about the ownership, having that like 400 healthy collection and things like that. >> a lot of the benefits to consumers are easy to see. he talked about having what you want when you want it. when we talk about turning it into services you have the chance to get access to things you would never be able to afford to own. but there's another side to this, which is what about the people involved, what about the workers? this is something to look at closely, susan lund, we talk about cars.

lyft and uber have provide employment opportunities for a lot of people. at the same time some of the same people are anxious now about this transition to self-driving cars. are those jobs going to be obsolete? when they look at something like spotify, the musicians can we've heard complaints at times about whether billy able to make a living when people just stream the music instead of buying at a store? susan, what are some of the trends in terms of how employment and jobs are being affected speak with the short answer is, a lot. there are two big things were talking about the one is automation like self-driving cars, and then there's the independent worker, what happens to the workers. do you have a job with one full-time employer your the automation part is still to be seen. if we do move to a sharing economy the auto industry and the supply chain surround automotive is like a major

employer in the u.s. still today. so if we do move to a point where none of us own cars and there's a fleet of cars driving us all around, i think we have something like 90% fewer car sales each year. that is a huge hit to u.s. manufacturing. what happens to all those people ask i don't have great answers on the automation point but we just give released a study that's out in the lobby for those who are interested where will they go independent work, and the government statistics on this are really poorly done. the way policymakers and most people come although this is a pretty young room, say your parents thought of employment like a payroll job with one employer, and that's the jobs numbers that are released the first right after the month. and everyone is watching carefully. we do a very poor job of tracking but actually a huge

part of the publishing doesn't make their living having one traditional employer. so we get our own served in the u.s. and five europea european countries. but with that in the u.s. is about 27% of the working age population comes almost one in three people today don't just have one traditional job. they are either a full-time freelancer or self-employed person or independent contractor, or they are using the geek economy like driving for lift moreover, as a supplement to the other main economic activity. i think along with sharing economy it's interesting because for people who want to be their own boss and not have a traditional job, things like uber and task rabbit and upwards and airbnb enable you to more easily than ever put together a bunch of different income streams and then make a living that way.

so it is a whole new world, and the trend has been we think -- we've only done the served at one point but there's other research to suggest over the last 10 years the share of people and alternative work arrangements has grown quite significantly, and the sharing economy might actually spur an even faster shift in that direction. >> there's some ambiguity we talk about the sharing economy. there's a few differences related to stress we're discussing here today. there's something like when we're talking about cars and car sharing, in some cases people actually sharing a car. another cases there's one card is going to picking up different people over the course of a day. something like music, it's not sharing but we are talking about the transition from something you used to onto something that you now subscribe to. it is good for basically a good to a service.

and the innocents what you're talking about, susan, with the economy, employers are sharing workers. they never owned their workers but they used to have a defined number of workers who gave them their full attention presumably and now there's a sharing. can each of you, so we talked about cars, music the another obvious one, other type of media, netflix, people are streaming movies and tv. can each of you name a non-obvious area? it easy to go from a couple of well-defined examples of things that are now being shared. ..

in ways that help advance them in a professional manner and some ways but also has changed the nature of work in a lot of ways as well because you're not going to a static one work environment anymore. you are seeing these honeycomb work systems in the suburbs and environments as well. >> i would say we've got rent the runway. that is one. there's luxury services. so there's apps now where you can schedule massages, blow

dries, all of that. they will come to your home into it for you. some of it is i wanted when i wanted and how i want it. there's a customizable snack box delivered to you. >> from a labor to director esoteric discussions on what couldn't be filled by a freelancer or independent worker. the answer is very little. you can imagine wherein retail and fast food, dry cleaners, i'm going to watch this come in and do it. the highly specialized surgeons share their services on a piecemeal basis across the

economy get paid for each surgery they do in the good of this hospital in the next one and the next one. and the world of work in the early years ago wrote the seminal article about why is there appropriation. why is their company. at the time because it's easier to manage and reduces transaction within your company contracting everything out to the marketplace. what apps and digital platforms do now is completely changing that equation. it's cheap, efficient, transparent. you get the pool of potential workers. i think it is a long transition but you can imagine the size of large companies shrinking in terms of their full-time employees. there's some knowledge you want to keep in-house, but a lot more can be done on the project task-based basis of independent contract yours. this is not new. we've seen the evolution of outsourcing with companies in

the last 10 to 20 years. but these new on demand platforms could actually -- we may see another wave of that type of shift. >> is thinking about what is really nail and what is sold in terms of sharing. the idea of sharing things is not novel. we have had for a long time public libraries. we have shared taxicabs. we have rented tuxedos, prom dresses and we share a lot of services provided by the government infrastructure, public transit. by some of those mold on trade more old-school forms of sharing at risk from these new forms of for-profit sharing. libraries might be one example. public transit might be another one. heidi think about lyft's effect on public transit in a world

where we can hail a card in a time, does that encourage the kind of sprawl and the car dominated environment without we are beginning to move away from. >> that's a wonderful question. we don't view ourselves as a competitor to mass transit at all. one of the beauties of the alternative is dead all around for the riser coming and going. there's a huge population and we would call them under sir transportation population. people who live too far from bus stops, to fire for metros. the idea you could get a ride door-to-door to the train. we have a product where it's a shared ride and to reduce costs in some cases $3. you can get a ride if you share it. 70% of our rights in san francisco in mind right now and 30% of those are happening

100 meters from a transit station. people at earning to look at this as a compliment to how they are utilizing transit. the thing that i'm hearing through is there has to be a consumer demand that drives all of this. uber and lyft came to the state on to the state on all the sudden people have a door-to-door ride without the serendipitous nasa tried to hail a cab. they know it's coming. there's a sameness mess. you don't have to pay with a credit card. you can have a much easier experience. that's something consumers really love. it didn't work out from the first iteration. maybe in a couple years. but not yet. it just wasn't consumer ready. that's something i think it's a matter what industry you're in and i matter what market its consumer choice that is

amplifying how people are using these emerging technologies. >> you all can feel free to jump in at any point you want. i wanted to also ask -- i wanted to ask about what we will still on 10 years or 20 years from now. why doesn't lend itself to being transformed into a service you subscribe to resent the new hail and demand a smartphone. i say whatever we care about, i find myself that i don't consider myself a car person. a lot of people like to own a car. they love a car. it's really fun to drive. what we own is that we care about. but we want to own. i know plenty of women who may continue to buy designer clothes and keep them in their closet

because they are the heirs. you're on what you actually care about. >> i like that sort of pithy formulation. i think you'd does the people could still care about cars, probably still care about music, but you still think they will move from ownership to streaming. i think they're a powerful personal feelings. we heard a story a few months ago and someone who claimed that apple music had stolen music, that it had somehow converted the mp3 style on his computer, had replaced them with files available on the cloud to apple music and some of them are gone. there was a whole forensic investigation to get to the bottom of what happened. does he not show that people still do want to own their music at least the songs they like

most. >> i think about my own personal, when i listen to music, i shouldn't probably say this sitting up here as an ambassador of the stream for, but sometimes they stream from other services. it really depends on what i'm doing. if i'm having a dinner party and i just want music to play, i might not stream from spotify. if i want things more customized and things have created, maybe it will be a better platform for me. i have finals that i still love and i love the sound of it and sometimes i want to listen to that. so i think it is -- i want to say i think what we are going to own or maybe much of the actual material side of th with the experience and the joy in things like that at these services bring you if that makes any sense. you're going to own what you want to own and some of that will be actual experience and

not necessarily the distribution channel or the hard materialistic good. >> you mentioned final sales have been going out. that's an interesting case in point because once we could get most of the music we want easily on demand for a service like spotify, maybe the stuff we care about what we do on it, we want to really have the tactile analog experience with it. does that apply in the future if you really love cars, you'll rant your electric buggy to get around. bill aylett on your phone, but maybe you'll still have your classic ford mustang in the garage. >> you know, i remember my first car was a 740 turbo wagon and i loved it. my brother total dip which is a whole another situation. that is something where people do, they have a love affair with

cars. in the 1960s to 1960s, getting your drivers license and going onto the open road was a freedom and now it has become much more of a burden. you think about how much space in your house is dedicated to hardcover books and dvds that you don't need to utilize that days. in the united states right now, there's more parking in the entire square mileage in the state of connecticut. there's different ways on how you can utilize space. it will be organic. the world is not going to go autonomous overnight. human driven cars and autonomous vehicles operating side by side as technology continues to emerge. it will be interesting to see how this works. >> i would say to contradict what i just said.

the next generation could you much less about tangible goods. this could be a generational issue. teenage daughter who is finally learning to get a drivers license. there is no need because she can take lyft and uber around. she may never write like i do. they are growing not without the notion of things is a tangible good. people like meme might say i read a lot of books. i put it on my bookshelf. they may not do that. they may in fact be in the world that is much less about physical good. much more digital.

>> getting back to the gig economy and not owning the job, but having the different gigs sustaining them. are these people making a good living? do they feel like they have job security or are some of these unemployed despite having gigs? >> i do want to get into how the government counts things. we didn't ask about income, and so the income is very difficult to do accurately. we did ask a 14-point of how satisfied unsatisfied are you with different elements of your work life. we ask this of everyone. people with traditional jobs as well as independent workers. 12 of the 14 metrics, people who are independent workers are more satisfied and this includes income level and income security

including health care benefits are equally satisfied with traditional workers. we do know they're very happy with what they're doing. there's other work like jpmorgan institute found people's income found people who do get work or independent work have less income and payroll employees. that is really interesting. a way of filling in. then income is quite volatile. >> went back to the team of boeing things you care about. if you don't have a full-time job, a career is something you can care about. maybe those are not things you are able to be as passionate

about and pursue a different life. there is this question of security when you don't own some income it can't be taken away from you? not just to get. if you are uber driver, you know your company's plan is to make you obsolete eventually. your media, beyond spotted by you could have not spotted site goes down. we have the dns outage the other day. the attack on a domain name server to down off the services across a web and netflix went down. nobody's been dying dvds because they have netflix. is there a downside to access over ownership and the sense that something could go down or be taken away from it. >> at his technology. i feel that every day at work when my computer crashes.

computers are great when they work. sure there is a downside. you are reliant on technology and things like that which is 95% of the time works in our favor, but there's always that moment where it might not. just a thought on that. even in the nondigital world, things could break down. your car would need to go in for services and it is part of life. for us, you touched on drivers. our drivers at lyft are as much as a consumer of the platform as i drivers. guess we are going towards an atomic future, but so was the whole world. we see in some ways that are driver numbers in the next few iterations are going to be

increasing and we will continue to look at ways we can support our drivers with what they need. that is something we take very seriously at lyft just to let everyone know. >> this has been a very optimistic and all. cybersecurity is a real issue and privacy. in this digital world where everything is streamed, guess what, spotify does what i like to listen to because they are only suggesting more things i like to listen to. i think that the issues of cybersecurity privacy are downsized and could be major blockages to realizing the future if we don't solve them. >> a lot of people that prevents them from services. millennial don't think much about it. you talk to older demographics and the reason they don't want an online bank, the reason my father has a flip phone with

electrical tape around it because he was not by a smartphone because he's convinced it is going to track him and he might be onto something. for spotify and i would assume lyft as well, we are so protective of it from a consumer standpoint and to be candid, and product development standpoint. so yeah, it is creepy. we can figure out your personality and data based on what you stream. we also had 85 passwords they have to log single day to make sure that is dead and the reason we won't get into advertising partnership with certain companies so it is a huge concern. >> i'm really glad she brought that up. it's not just security but the people who do all that can monitor usage of it at all times and restrict your usage of it. if you have encyclopedia home you can look up whatever you want but when you use google,

and google is tracking what you're searching and building a profile of you for advertisers. so that is another potential downside to the transition. i want to also talk about one more upside one more outside and then we'll go through some question and answers from the audience. one way of seeing companies that offer subscription or sharing services are able to give people a little bit of a sense of ownership through customization. one of the smart things spotify has done. i started using the free version and to start building playlists on there. want to put all the time and effort, you feel like you own nose and then you want to listen to those playlists, but they are within spotify so you sign up for the premium. i wonder if you could talk about the idea of how you personalize a car that is not yours. i've heard the ceo of gm as top about how you step into a car and your smartphone can give

your next. >> we have a wonderful partnership with gm looking towards the future. you can reinvent the idea. you're coming off the work. maybe you can call a sport lyft. it's all about efficiencies. you can be streaming the pregame in the car and be going to the game. it's a whole different idea about how people are going through traffic. you're able to drive through and you can take your autonomous wi-fi listing to your morning e-mails before your lunchtime meeting. that is something you can think about in different ways. you look at different populations like senior mobility for people who may not be able

to drive anymore all the sadness that spontaneity in life, now at a touch of a button can be able to have a car at their fingertips to go to medical appointments, go grocery shopping and do things they want to do and it's changing the way people live their life overall and that is ownership they are able to get back and that's exciting. >> we can go and see if anyone in the audience is a question a lot to us. >> i'm curious about the idea of workers unions, holiday gift economy and the court cases i think in l.a. or california. how does this change with the way unions work in their relevancy in the future? >> do you have any thoughts?

>> file, i can't comment on the specific court cases. i'm not a lawyer but i am an account. some people might and gets even worse. the whole idea of unions and guilds is an interesting one because you can imagine them getting new life. they use health insurance. they do have some compensation negotiation that you ran shows how to insurance. there is a fun opportunity and it could be unions to do things that benefit, income security, training and career progression. so the fact is a lot of people who want to be the economics research for you. i'm not good at marketing and sales for myself and answered i

don't cannot file my taxes. there's a whole ecosystem of different services to enable people to do all that kind of got work that they are not good at and don't know how to do and don't want to do. >> i think it's a really worthwhile point because we have an economy and a social system built up around the idea of goods manufacturing goods, distributing them, selling them at retail stores and we know how to build an economy and society around that. we are still figuring out how you build a society around an economy full of services and included in that is the people who are working part-time jobs. one interesting trend i would note. a great newsletter called over sharing all about the so-called sharing economy. i was reading her latest issue of it. she was talking about a series

of startups in these bombs that are explicitly hiring their employees, hiring workers and in many cases giving them a share of equity in the company. these are not so far the leaders that we will see how that model fares against the contract or model. maybe that will provide hope for the idea the sharing economy could lead to stable and for all careers. >> i am wondering about thinking platforms going forward. i don't have a facebook which is normally not a problem. there's something i can't access but it's really okay. one reason an app would want to use facebook is for central i.d. verification. thinking about consolidation of

i.d. verification going forward if that's a concern, are we thinking we might have a consumer superuser i.d. provided by a google or facebook wearer through that i would log into my uber and spotify. are there any conversations you've heard, water can turns around that are opportunities there. >> can you address what your options are for lodging and maybe just a start. >> user name is linked to an e-mail. i have not heard of a super consumer login. that is horrifying to me to be candid to have everything in one place. >> is a very good question. facebook has one of them to be the service. google class at design that

didn't pan out. we had a couple months ago that i moderated about virtual assistants and how they are becoming your portal to all these different online services. if you have an amazon ipo, i don't know if we are trained to get. you can handle a car, use it to play your music and then there is the question of do those assistants, do they gain control over what you have access to and what you don't have access to. the question of interoperability, maybe you heard test flight is working on a shared tesla network. once tussles are autonomous to drive themselves, elon musk's ideas you might have your tesla drive and rented out to other drivers this is a nice idea.

so tesla controlled the algorithms that drive the car so they can be the driver so you don't own the car and you can't now rented out to somebody through lyft. does this worry you? >> you know, the competition is a healthy thing and the more competition you have in the market is a good thing. >> it is a little bit concerning. there is a winner take all component to technology. the digital i.d. is really an interesting than concerning element. i don't think i have gave facebook by social security number. it may take it no-space because i've created an e-mail account, but you can create accounts to get around this. this could all be having to a social security number or a true

identification is interesting and horrifying. >> it is a real issue because if you have a retail environment is something figure out on a decentralized recess. they all manned and they can start commercial property to any number of tenants and go to the mall and shop at tower records or go to best buy. but when you buy so much online weather is through the app on your phone or the amazon ipo or that sort of thing it's not clear we have a level playing killed. competition is healthy and all of that. a bigger rival is made by apple and controls the digital equivalent of the mall. they get to put the apple music cap front and center and make it harder and take a cut off the

top we need to use the app. centralization is efficient. we have time for one more question. >> my question has to deal more with is this a shift because of desire or more of a shift out of necessity to sharing. we are coming out of the worst recessions in a long time. many millennialist face the burden of student loans. if the economy improved, and do you think we will see a shift back to ownership? right now i'm very slow rate. personally i would like to own my own car that can't afford it because the student loans and other things like that. you think sharon might decrease once the economy starts improving? >> is apparently just economic anxiety and that term is popular for other reasons is that

economic anxiety leading the younger generation to be willing to string things and share things rather than on things. is it just the future or is it because they're young and as they get older they have change. any last thoughts? >> you look at the united states in the history of the united states were a country is built to work hard. highways, freeways, parking spaces, sidewalks to a certain type. right now we are at the cusp of issues transportation revolution where people are racing towards reinventing the american city and will be driven by whether people will drive a car and that is exciting. at least we hope will continue to share rose to make sure we reduce congestion.

we will see how that man speared >> thank you to our guest, lauren belive have lyft, thank you so much for joining us. [applause] is [inaudible conversations] now for the second phase of our afternoon. i would like to invite monica pot to give a short presentation on the post-ownership society. monica potts is a writer based in manassas, virginia. fellow at the blue america foundation asset building program and writes about a variety of subjects including poverty, politics and culture. monica pot, thank you. [applause] >> okay, so i'm going to talk

about what the sharing economy site for people as it's lived on it's lived on the ground and all address the questions about economic anxiety. the big thing i want to touch on an aggregate to mention this later, add this sentence to every point i make. we want to make sure people are participating because it's what they prefer and they are not buying things because they don't want to own them and not because they can't afford them. this is the result of moving down the economic ladder. so i want to talk a little bit about young adults, millennialist mostly in the economic condition they found themselves in before we talk about the sharing economy. the oldest known and trainer late 30s. the youngest in college now and it's important to talk about the way we have been entirely shaped by the internet and other trends which have also involved a lot of economic insecurity. not just the great recession. it's also the recession and the

early part of the last decade which is when i graduated. i was born in 1979. by that measure is one of the oldest millennialist. i graduated from college in spring 2002 after 9/11. my first job after college was the city of new york and the government was coming off a hiring freeze. i had no idea. i had no idea what was going to start. i had no idea when i was going to need to move to new york and i had to be ready. my first job was up in the air for a long time. the whole economy is really uncertain at that time and we spent their 20s catching up from that. this is especially true when the internet seemed like it was creating this new industries and people were walking off with their diploma with great jobs lined up.

obviously those of us who went to college were better off their age mates who were stuck working in the booming service economy, that was minimal wage jobs and those were also uncertain. they weren't getting full-time hours. they weren't able to move up the economic ladder. those of us who did go to college also financed it mostly with dad. since 1985 the cost of college has increased 500%. more people are borrowing money and more people are borrowing more money. the average student debt in two student debt into that support for people who graduated that year was less than $20,000 in 10 years later had grown to $30,000. polished dollars. college debt is fine if that translates to higher earnings down the road but after we graduated in the first recession we experienced a great recession. what was different for millennialist was economic downturns that the youngest workers hardest.

the youngest group of workers hit by the great recession were hit harder and took longer to recover in the same age group get in early recession in the 1980s and 1990s. at the same time, the cost of living has gone up and the jobs are really increasing in cities like austin company george, d.c. and same with cisco. the cost of living has gone up really dramatically. what you find is people who covered the basics about 75% of their income will cover the basics. the 50% of people's incomes are going to basics like housing, health insurance and education. no one else had almost all of their money on rent and health insurance. that means a bunch of things. that means they are living in this basic cities and they are not able to get to the point where they are owning homes. a group of millennialist in their late 30s now buy homes

at later ages and also by fewer homes. that means they are not building wealth. they are living in places as they mention on the earlier panel, places underserved by city services. part of the reason they are using things like lyft and uber to get home as the city they live in doesn't provide buses to take them there. that is a different change. they also uncertain as was mentioned earlier. almost one in three people are supplementing their incomes in one way or another are working solely in the gig economy. i am freelancing as well and a lot of people are freelancing straight out. it has its benefits. it means a lot of freedom but also thought of insecurity. if you're a bartender and you also drive for lyft, you could be working all the time. the benefits to having a child is jobs are there for you when

you experience a downturn. if you are a lyft driver and your car gets totaled, you are not going to be able to earn money in that time. if you're a worker and you get sick there is nobody paying for sick days and so that changes the relationship people have to work. so things like sharing economy tend to make less possible for people. if you are living in a city and you can't afford your rant, you can go away for a couple weeks at a time and rent your home out while you were on vacation. but that really contributes to geographic inequality. if you live in a place where no one wants to go, you're not going to be able to rent your place out on airbnb. if you're living in a place that doesn't have the booming jobs are aware uber drivers aren't in demand, the ways you can supplement and, alas. in many cases, it is because people are not getting enough money from the regular nine to

five jobs. they also don't pay as well as they used to. because the cost of living has gone up so much, people are saving money for retirement. these kinds of trends can have huge consequences down the road. if you're not buying homes and not saving for retirement, even if you start doing that in your late 30s and early 40s, that is a step back. you have some catching up to do and that is what we are going to see a lot in 30 and 40 years for millennial start to retire if they release that back by that time period. the relationship that has two the sharing economy is if you've been supplementing your work with things like uber and replaced by driverless cars, you haven't been building skills that other employers will necessarily be translated to their work and how you move on to an economy with some of those pieces start to disappear and during that time you are

contributing to a 401(k) and you are buying a house and building wealth and able to save. i also want to think about the ways that the sharing economy could take the air out of some of what we used to do that as mentioned before. there was an old farmer sherry and we had which was where we let the government do things like spread our risk around and do things for us. government programs like public transportation, are we altogether pay for a service that was able to get us around in cities and suburban areas in more rural areas. that is also important because if new technology like charmless cars takeover, people who can't afford to participate in that are locked out of these new technologies. if you can afford to buy a driverless car if you can afford to rent or hail, then you're

going to start to see an increasing inequality broadly based around geography. we also as i said use the government to share risk. because work lives are so insecure, i do think there's a bigger appetite among younger workers to let the government or unions or other more traditional institutions take on some of that security for them and take on some of the risk for them. things like public option and health exchanges. there's a political appetite that wasn't there before. i think it's important to continue to think about inequality and why people may or may not be able to afford if we are talking about ownership versus accessing services on a continuing basis. so that's that. [applause]

>> thank you, monica. i'd like to invite john mclaughlin and the speakers joining her in her second conversation to the stage. john mclaughlin is a reporter and blogger covering surveillance for national security for the intercept. previously she cover national security and foreign policy of mother jones magazine is an editorial fellow. john mclaughlin. >> hello, everyone. this conversation is a little bit new for me. i tend to focus on national security and policy and some of the things that came up in the last panel. these issues of ownership are broader reaching the not and i'm excited to talk to my panel about it. our panel is called the illusion of ownership and we touched on some of the concerns about losing our ownership of data services, but we will talk about the others. i'd like to welcome my participants, director of the patent reform project right here

public knowledge and he will tell you more about it working to reform an enhanced patent quality and prior to joining public knowledge, he was a research assistant for professor who i also know. patrick is the chief communications officer at the united states patent and trademark office and he will be able to tell us a little bit more about what the administration is thinking about these issues. so, welcome. >> so to start our conversation, i would like to start with kind of what are your guys thoughts about the end of ownership and what might occur that were not addressed in the previous panel. what kinds of things do we need

to be thinking about besides, you know, will we be able to access uber and lyft and things like that. >> all go ahead and start. thank you for having me here. i'm glad to represent the administration on this. president obama we think about these kinds of issues every day so it's great to speak on it. provocative title, the end of ownership. i remember after 9/11 talking about the end of history. this election would be a good example. i think you can think more broadly about the spectrum of ownership. by 18-year-old son turned 18 today. all i can think about is cars. i know we're going to have that conversation. he gets all of his music through apple music. my daughter is 21, lives in los angeles.

where better to own a car? she doesn't own a car appeared she takes a bus to and from work and uses uber or lyft to see her friends or go to museums or bring groceries home. but she loves final. i think it's important to remember as technology changes we still have i not even that we went to cds and mp3s. based on your economic situation as we just heard from monica or your own personal taste, we are going to have different approaches to reach different product or service we buy in terms of ownership. >> thank you for inviting me to be on the panel. you know, in terms of we been talking about i find it very exciting. i take advantage all the time. but it is worth considering why

ownership is still important. i heard this story on the podcast where it talks about a design firm with the houses reconstruct it for people in an earthquake. so they would build up -- they would know the house. half of that would have your room and kitchens and bedrooms. it was because they wanted to give the people moving into these houses the chance to house the ability to make these their houses. the government provided services. they talk about but the store's booklet. you go to a and the houses all the same.

some of them have ulcers of crazy stuff. you know, i think that really says something about why ownership is important and that it allows people to take advantage of the creativity and do things that are also really unexpected. a professor at m.i.t. has done a lot of studies on lead user innovation. the idea that when people purchase things, sometimes they come up with really creative uses that you wouldn't expect. you know, they might replace frisbees, for example. i started creativity is something that drives people forward on an individual matter. that this is really important to people in their daily lives, but also we take advantage of the learning that each of us can do. you go to a website like life

hacks.com and learn all sorts of things expect it. it is found in that depends on the basic right of ownership to do things you have. >> i think that's a really interesting issue in some and we can explore and do about more deaths. we are really sure sometimes how much we own specific things. you sit in your house all day. this is my chair. i en masse. i can paint it a different color. in terms of my phone in the software, there are updates to.every couple days and you don't really read through what is going on. oftentimes it's a security update they definitely should use. we don't necessarily know what's going to happen.

we don't have a choice in terms of what is coming from that. how bizarre deception of ownership and how much to manufacture is on certain objects? >> the interesting thing these days is i assume i own a share. computer software i'm not really sure. for a long time it was a simple distinction. for a while court cases followed software and physical is another thing. your car's got computer and that, so it can be certain times. what that means is you've got the merger of things.

the companies manufacturing this device is are the same techniques to say you don't own this. roman providing a license that we can take it back in who knows why. but it's a little different between your not allowed to use itunes for an improper process. you're not used your thermometer. what is happening is people are starting to recognize that as they click through more contracts in order to own their own physical devices, that it's not clear whether or not it says simple as suspect did. >> i think ideally we don't think about it.

you mentioned you on our home. technically they own it because they haven't paid it off yet. but i just paid per month. ray hit nine-year mark. you mentioned manufacturing. i was fortunate enough. it was actually a good trip. i was there representing secretary for manufacturing intellectual property ownership, i bought a sometimes somebody comes an inventor until the minute this design. if they are getting involved in it, they might become a co-owner.

in some cases i just made this made. in other cases, maybe it's license. i saw these being made for dodge ram trucks. the designer or maybe they were selling it to forward. we don't think about that. all this stuff is happening in the background. we don't have to sit and think about intellectual property and think about ownership every day as long as everything works. >> absolutely. that is something that goes on in the background that you may not notice when something bad happens i guess. one thing i think about a lot when i'm writing is the idea of technology and the law. technology is rapidly progressed through the past two years we've seen the new services. but how does the law always kept up with that in terms of privacy and nothing i've read about regularly. i honestly do not know all that

much about patent law, but i know you both do. i would love if you could talk a little bit about that. >> so i direct early talks a lot about this and how we are moving into this tangible economy. i don't think i've heard that word today that it's common in the spaces we have the new products and services disrupting business model. i think airbnb certainly talks about the mayor of new york and talk about the disruptions they are experienced the regulations. it goes probably. i think it is important to recognize often you don't need to completely rethink the law. we've been using the term sharing the economy but in reality basically it's like a rental economy. in the 90s i was covering the tech boom and it would appear on a program called the new economy show. the assumption was the economy would do.

change your dog provider, change your world. and then we have the bus. turns out it was just regular. the sharing economy is changing the ways we interact with each other and products and services. but ultimately it is still driven by economic forces. susan would agree with that. you can work within the law, but you do have to recognize there is going to be implications if you're an entrepreneur to maybe get ahead of those witches direct advice to people. >> one of the things i think is interesting as you can look at how ownership affects law. one of the things is when you have a device you on, this is how it works. you can figure it out and tell people maybe you shouldn't hide this and things like that. a lot of times the devices are black boxes that know what's

inside of them. didn't make it harder for us to figure out that's going on and figure out their security. some of those predictions are technological dissections. the technology preventing you unite circumvent them, but the laws that make it potentially criminal. it means we can't fully understand the things we supposedly on. the scandal is probably a really good example of that. people couldn't figure out that volkswagen has a computer program to achieve the admissions testing program because you can't just go and open up the computer and figure out how the computer program works. they works. they put a low-budget layers of inscriptions on it to make it difficult to figure out what's going on.

the car manufacturers have sought to block security researchers from doing that sort of investigation. i find that is unfortunate because it is a public service and people go out and figure out that these products might have some sort of defects or some sort of problem and to the extent that companies are able to prevent them from doing that seems pretty boring to me. >> absolutely. as a journalist i see public awareness and so that's an important aspect of it. also i feel like this could be an issue in terms of creativity. i mean, when you have a device are sent a new use, you want to modify and someone we want to use that product to create something on your own. does your lack of ownership there cause problems for your creativity and in what ways could you envision that? >> i definitely think it is kind

of an issue. one of my favorite websites is ikea hackers or people will take a chair and turn it into some in completely different. they turned it into an expanding table. you flip out the box and you can make a table of whatever size you want. people do really cool stuff with materials that you would not expect. but there are a lot of companies out there who really want in the way they expect. the most famous of these companies sell a program where only program where only about two use of funds. once it's done you have to return it. you're not allowed to do anything else. what that means is if you come up with some sort of unusually for doing that, for example people figure out how to get food coloring into ink cartridges so they can print on

cakes. you're not allowed to do it because you're not allowed to do it and taken advantage of legal techniques to avoid that. >> yeah, i'm glad both of you mentioned not by the way. i like this notion of being an end-user creativity like your ikea example. but the supply chain we have creativity throughout the chain so somebody came up with a way to design those pieces of ikea furniture were you could them with an allen wrench. in theory you can assemble them. you think about lyft. so it just seems intuitively obvious to us. i also enjoy how easy it is to tip the driver. i like that teacher. we just heard lyft identified

this need and some algorithms to solve it. that was creativity at the front end. and i.t. plays a role in that, too. it's important to recognize a think about ownership is end-user and that's not a bad thing. >> they're all kinds of new technologies coming out there that might change these questions of how is the patent office considering things like 3-d printing at how could that infringe on these things other people have created. >> we held an event a few months ago. we are kind of nerdy, but his 3-d printing. one of the five manufacturing plants i toured only did 3-d printing and they've been around since 96. i find that fascinating if they're not in the marketplace. there are certainly implications in terms of copyright and patents and trademarks in the ability to download something that may have a trademark from

somebody else and manufacture it yourself. the consensus is this is truly revolutionary technology that's going to improve our lives. the manufacturing plant were designing these parts that were going to be used in machines to make other things. they were able to create passages, for example, that you literally physically cannot do with a drill. there is no way to drill through metal and get these things. and so, we are going to have to work it out. we have to figure out the nuances in some of them will make headlines. but more broadly, we will see greater economic growth and opportunity. >> one of the most exciting things, one of the most exciting things i think is that it takes manufacturing that used to be in the hands of people who knew how

the entire supply chain work. they knew a fabrication plant and they knew the designers and a new specification for the drawing. they put it in the hands of uma. i don't know any fabrication plant that can cap model for me, but if i'd call it a design and i can design it using any computer program for modeling, a week later they get these things that i ask them to print. ..

>> you think about the auto industry because we talked about that. traditionally, you get the new model every four or five years, right? a car i own they completely change the interior from the 15 to the 60 model. i suspect 3-d printing was involved in that. because they can make these outer types cheap. they contest them, run through. i think, we may not even 10 years from now, we may not have model years of cars. they may just keep iterating them in real-time. you just keep getting the latest one. it changes the way we think about things. >> definitely. i'm curious whether or not you

both think that types of 3-d printing, we talk about apple and the iphone. i think i know probably 100 people broken the iphones. i'm not one of them yet, knock on wood. i probably will tomorrow, break my screen. we were discussing in the greenroom about it's incredibly challenging to replace that screen that spending a lot of money. do you think things like 3-d printing, things like other solutions will be good for that but also butthead with of the companies? >> so yeah, i was talking about my experience a couple weeks ago of replacing an ipad screen. the problem of replacing the screen, try this out, involves prying open the glass with a pry tool while blowdried the glue that holds the glass together with the other hand.

because it's less it's something. the glass breaks of often small pieces. you were sitting there, pieces of glass or flight in your face. it's a wonderful experience. i did manage to do it. what it says i think is, if something the way these manufactures are treating these devices, that i also have, i also have a keyboard i purchased maybe about sixers ago. that think has entirely held together with philip screws. i can take a screwdriver and opened it up, replace the board, clean off the keys, all the things i want, screw it back together and it works fine. that process takes me about maybe a half an hour. when companies move from things like standard hardware to these screws they use on laptops and gluing things together and parts they can't be replaced by parts about a custom fit so you can't

replace them with other parts, it makes it a lot harder for people engaged in ordinary repairs. and that means that if the iphone breaks, unless you don't like a lot of skills and a lot of time for a willing to go to some specialist repair shop, you probably just had to throw it away. that i think is kind of unfortunate for a number of reasons. it's the recycling problem because it contains lithium battery, glass, metal. you can't surface of all out. so i think this sort of trend is a little concerning. 3-d printing does make it a little better because it does offer the option of retrieving the customize parts that you might not be able to find. there's a particular curve that's on will iphones that is

broken and you can find the replacement. you print it and then you'd have a just a. that i think is kind of cool. a lot of companies are not terribly happy. they want to be the only one selling repair parts and clothing to be something of conflict of their. >> absolutely. as the journalist who works in a very small segment, i work with people who are interested in things like security, i know that there are a lot of users who have different priorities, maybe the standard iphone, iphone isn't assumed a good example, but the standard and/or user. most people have androids in the country but they don't have great security. and when they push out the software and there's a flaw in an age is not to update it at all these users are vulnerable either to criminal hackers, sometimes even state actor thing on who it is, i've know certain people who are at risk to that. how do we properly incentivized

companies to be up to develop those things would even give us the choice to do not? >> this is something commerce secretary put stress focus on a lot, cybersecurity. ntia is a part of commerce and she works with them, some agencies including the u.s. patent and trademark office. it's a real challenge. we work a lot with startups. generally what you see, special attack started, you see the engineer, wozniak let's call it. you see the evangelist, jobs, and maybe they get in summary i can understand the money part which is good. and then they just plow for and they get the customers. secretary pritzker like to remind people you should probably early on be thinking about electric property and to think about cybersecurity. both of them are really hard to backload once you start getting

down the chain. in terms of creating an incentive and we're doing this through public education. we are doing roundtables, talking to schools. we have the u.s. tbl happy camper we work through first six greatest basically it's like a camp that you bring in old ibm selectric and modify them. would try to help them understand some of these principles. it's a serious problem. >> security is an interesting issue. we all know about the recent -- that nearly caused by like iot cameras that were easily hacked because they had a fixed user and password that know what to change, not even the user. the thing is there are two approaches dealing with security vulnerabilities. the first one which is the sort of like this is what you seem to want to do is lock device of

them as much as possible. make it really would hard for anybody to pick up what's going on. it sounds very attractive but the issue is that most security from those that are discovered are not discovered by the company. i discovered by third parties who do research on it, you know, they do the penetration testing and realized this is something the company overlooked. especially these companies, the design companies, software second or third on the list for them. software security may not be at the top of the priority chain where as it would be for users and security researchers. that leads to different approach which is open the device up as much as possible. let people figure what's going on. maybe make the software open source of that way take advantage of the crowd, they can figure out what are all the issues, they can report on them and you can incrementally improve the device at a much more rapid pace.

i think it is that aspect of owning and understanding devices, that is very significant helpful. >> you talk about security researchers. there's also some areas of the law when we could fear penalties with messing with those devices come anything with patents or the computer fraud and abuse act as and abuse act is something i wanted to sometimes. people are persecuted because they may just be doing security research to try to help the company, but they are penalized because the axis that system without authorization. what other sort of ways that people run into issues with doing that kind of tinkering? >> the most often cited legal concern for this sort of activity is section 12:01 of the digital of a new copyright act. that section was originally designed as a way of enforcing

drm technologies unlike music or dvds or e-books. the idea was that the plan of some sort of encryption or some sort of technological protection measure they call it, that protects the internal copyrighted contents, then efforts to circumvent that protection measure would be punishable as a crime and civil lawsuit and any number of other ways. companies have sought to use that as a way of protecting not just copyright content, but also doctors and medical devices and all sorts of -- because they all have software and the copyright, but there any technological measures on the device for protecting the software, and i think the assertion of that law apparently fairly a stranger,

that i think is somewhat concerning. there's a similar other issues. >> digital millennium copyright act is an interesting thing to bring up and up in some isolated cases that were involved some kind of questionable interpretation of that. you may know that the copyright office has a procedure and i think you guys have participated in that we've got to go and articulate ways in which you think it's been used they can create exceptions and they have created exceptions. we are not a law enforcement agency at the uspto but we did several years ago start a conversation brought on copyright and innovation in the digital economy. and we did a green paper in 2013 and the white paper in 2015 where as the green papers like your other problems. white paper, potential solutions. i did know that before i joined the government. we get to the department of commerce and we received so many comments. under public knowledge process

but in those as well. and roundtables around the country and one thing that we kept hearing over and over again is that there are these issues but the marketplace is working some of them out. that was encouraging. that's not surprising because we've been talking all the about what do consumers want, what do we as end-users won't. if you have a bunch of consumers unhappy things will be somebody that will try to target that. so nothing ever think of salt or there will be future problems but it is interesting to see based on what we heard that things are working themselves out in some ways. >> well, i will open it up to the audience the remember our previous instructions, to please wait for the mic and when asking a question make sure it is question and not just a statement. anyone want to kick things off? >> i feel bad because our past one and that's what i was giving it some time.

i'm curious about changing attitudes in this space toward law and ownership. are their partisan trends? are the trends for fall and hoping it between younger people have different ideas about ownership and the role that patents should play? i don't think about patents at all because i don't create anything, i wonder if i am representative of millennials will be involved in creating something they would approach this with any of those questions about ip. so going forward are you seeing any trends? >> it's an excellent question to reduce them to live in partisan times. i will so you don't think patents are told by with a. i mentioned my kids earlier. they had been forced to think about swapping site. i bring it up at the dinner table. they are both in college now. i will say that for the most part, intellectual property policies been a pretty bipartisan issue.

in 2011 congress passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in both the house and senate and act which we've implement at the uspto and is actually provided some tools to help improve patent quality, provide a stable funding, provided a postgrad courts are anybody can challenge a patent if they think it is illegitimate to bring before the court. it's faster and cheaper than the u.s. court. but i think what you are seeing here is to the extent there's division of debates and the patent community it really has to do with your business model. our patents essential to your business model, or other peripheral? in some cases like trademarks the important everybody. lyft was a little pink, i think that's an important part of their portfolio. patents vary from industry to industry and that's where the question lies.

>> addressing a different part of the question which is a great question, what of the interesting trends i see particularly among younger people is that talk a lot about sharing economy like ours, there's something of sharing economy of ideas, too. it started with, i think so with the idea of open software. instead of i create the software and so, therefore, i want to make a lot of money by selling it complied with the software so i will share with people and other people can prove it and we will have like a big emitters of people who are helping to put together this really cool linux operating system or open office processing system. then it gets to different models of innovation even from other things. one of my favorite examples is kickstarter. the idea somebody could have a really cool idea, and a lot of times they attend as a trademark but sometimes they don't.

the idea is that the way to talk about the idea is by saying let's get the crap people will be willing to contribute enough money to make it worth my time to manufacture, put together this artwork or do any number of things. i think that's in a sense really turned on its head the traditional way we viewed monetizing ideas which is i have an idea, i have exclusive rights and not go make money. i have an idea, i will ask people for money and then i will make the idea. i think we're starting to see new business models and new norms about how innovation can happen among them as technologies develop it as we have generational change. that's really exciting to me, i think. >> question? >> a question on tinkering. as we, especially talk ipads,

et cetera to move towards more software that is touch enabled a force enabled, i used to work at apple and i could tinker and make series rethink so someone find customers but then they started locking audible downcourt kindle and where it could make a break for the customers and anti-to find a different path. so what's the solution and patenting and tinkering when it comes to disabilities and making sure that we are indicating for all groups? >> so let me start by saying i've now learned that if i need to replace the classroom ipad i'm calling charles. we've got a tinkerer right here. there are lots of challenges in terms of is that we were talking about this before and. i think all three of us shared it's not always intellectual property are not always patents. you mentioned the end-user license agreement or a lot of these are simply business transactions. most about want that to happen so we are allowing it to get all

this personal information or although when you read it's like why did all the stuff? so maybe that's where consumers can step in. and sometimes it hits on intellectual property but a lot of times it's more just a pure business model. >> i agree. she is the mac repair expert. >> i'm going to go to you actually. >> she's great. i think that it's right that a lot, this was, you know, this was an agreement or dispute between apple and amazon on the issue of whether god you will be allowed to play for his things over certain systems. i think at least the first answer is that the people using these things just need to express that this was bad.

back when apple was thinking of i think moving all of their itunes music to drm format, that you would be able to move on to different devices can there was a huge public outcry and they walked back and we introduced the format for think like 1 dollar per more. they have to listen to conservative people say this about what we want, we want to build the tinker, we want to build our music on different devices and things like that, dan i think as of this is that they have to listen. >> i think we can fit one more question and. if not, i will ask one of my own. anyone? no? okay great. we've talked a lot about ownership and what we are losing than what we are gaining, but i feel like probably the average american might not know what things he visited they might not

realize that they can alter or tinker or have someone else do it for them. so out of the community those issues to the public? >> so that's something we think about a lot at uspto. i mentioned are convention program. we have far convention coming on the third and fourth of november, and we do the hall of fame. so there after talking to schools and talking to educators. it really has a lot to do with consumer awareness i think the i think events like this are useful, and it's online and so we will be able to share that. i do think, and charles can speak to this, there are times where consumers rise up against the more broadly and bigger. boldly that's what matters, the power of the consumer. >> i think that's exactly right.

these issues affect consumers over the whether or not they realize it or not. it's just a matter of realizing all the contact user actually mean mean something and you might want to actually consider what the policy issues are behind the. people are starting to realize that. >> the fine print. thank you so much, everyone. good to have you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> you can watch this entire discussion again in the c-span video library at c-span.org. we will return to new america later today for a look at terrorism in the digital age looking at use of cell to be impacts how we view terrorism live at 3 p.m. eastern just over an hour from now here on c-span2. just two weeks until election day and are road to the white house coverage continues. join us later for a rally by republican nominee donald trump appearing in the battleground state of florida. see that my the 16th eastern. we will open our phone lines to get your reaction. we have an update on the race from a report on the campaign

trail. >> host: two weeks until election day, this is the headline at politico.com, donald trump's window is closing to join us on the phone is ben schreckinger has been following this story. thank you for being with us? >> caller: thanks for having me. trembled you been talking to operatives. bbc a path to 270 for donald trump? >> caller: most of them do not. any of them have been warning since it was nominated that it was going to be on the uphill battle for trump and at this point there are very, very few republican operatives who is a publicly or privately that they feel confident that trump has the path train one early voting is in place and well over half the country. what do the trends indicate for the democrats, for the republicans? >> caller: they are relatively encouraging for democrats. in florida where republicans have insisted outperformed democrats in mail in early

voting, that narrow advantage has narrowed further this year, and democrats tend to outperform and in person early voting which is just now starting this week. in north carolina, republicans in 2012 totally dominated democrats in terms of mailing early voting of that margin has shrunk considerably in both places. republicans need those margins to be competitive. out in nevada we saw a very, very well organized effort by democrats with the help, largely of unions on this we can to get people to the polls deploying a lot of surrogates your katy perry, for example, without in nevada urging people to get to the polls early. over all its positive for democrats, this version for republicans trembling you write about utah which is not voted for democrat since 1964 with linda johnson defeated barry

goldwater. right now the polls showing a tight race with a deep and potentially picking up the state the first time since 1968, evan mcmullen. what can you tell us about that race? >> caller: it is tight. polls tend to show mcmullen and trump neck and neck with hillary clinton not far behind. clinton is sending more staffers to the state deploying resources that are late. privately republican operatives think that the moment is the favorite. so we could see this conservative mormon independent picking up those electoral votes. anytime that you are a republican and utah isn't out for you, it's not just a sign of trouble the potential catastrophe. >> host: and other states where democrats are deploying more resources, new hampshire, where caveat is in a tough reelection battle against the democratic governor. what do the polls say about race? >> caller: polls have been

neck and neck earlier this month. anything giving a slight advantage to kelly ayotte. she has struggled with her position on trump throughout this can't go. she said she was voting for but not endorsing it. then when this tape leak of them bragging about a pair sexual assault, she totally disavowed him. the latest poll i've seen was last week showing her about eight points behind, what sort of speaks to the pickle that republicans are in. there's a danger in embracing top but has been a diehard supporters who are more loya loo him than are the republican party. so when these candidates disavow trump they could also face of the. >> host: where does this put hillary clinton i should try to run up the score india like coral college vote and pick up some key senate races to put the democrats back in the majority potentially and also some of the other down ballot races where democrats are hoping for the possibility of recapturing the house of representatives? >> caller: they are going on

offense now. they are refocusing on down ballot races. we haven't heard hillary clinton too much senate campaigning up on the stump but we did hear her this week and go after pat toomey in pennsylvania. that was a first. we are likely to see more of that. we have seen barack obama come out and issue endorsements are largely for house races trying to go on offense, pick a weight even for the republican majority. and so this is becoming common in many ways, more a story about just about the congressional losses are going to be for republicans. >> host: yet basin all of that, ben schreckinger, how did the democrats make certain their voters to go to the polls on election day sports you point out one of the risk for hillary clinton and her campaign immaturely resting on its laurels. callback that's right. largely comes down to executing

underground again, democrats they didn't have an advantage. donald trump has been invested in a get out the vote operation. so that execute on that and manage expectations. there is a danger of both sides think including that this race is over, voters will potentially stay home if they think that it's a done deal. so managing expectations and executing on crown king. >> host: bottom line for donald trump and for hillary clinton in the remaining 14 days before the november 8 election, what can we expect of each candidate, what will be their approach? >> caller: with clinton we are going to likely see an increasing focus on congressional races, increasing focus on giving her the strongest possible hand to play in terms of congress she's going to be dealing with. as she is now expecting by all indications to win this thing.

with trump he has been a wild card. you will continue to be a wildcard. when things got really bad for him about two weeks ago with those allegations of sexual assault coming out, you saw him really ratchet up his rhetoric. they got more extreme. he posited this past conspiracy of media and bankers it gets it. it's possible that if things get down to the wire and becomes ever more clear he will find new rhetorical extremes to go to. it's possible he will position himself to not be the fall guy, position of the to take the blame for an expected loss. it will be interesting given all the speculation about a possible post campaign media venture to see what he has to say about the. >> host: we will look for your report online at political.com. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> and again watched donald trump live in florida later today at six eastern on c-span2.

here's a look at some political ads florida residents are seeing their. >> let's go hillary. that's my opinion. >> she devil has the experience. >> i do not want someone running the country hasn't disappeared on the human being. >> if we want a hotel we will call donald trump. >> she does every individual. that's what i appreciate from hillary clinton. >> obama supports electric i'm voting for hillary. >> i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> i'm donald trump that i approve this message. spin the man who murdered joshua is an illegal alien and he should not have been your. the killer had been had so hard. then he took them to a field and he dumped him with gasoline and put them on fire. is the hardest day of my life. >> hillary clinton's border policy is going to allow people

into the country just like the one i murdered my son. >> c-span brings you more debates from key u.s. house, senate and governor's races.

>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. ♪ ♪ >> after i came up with the idea of reproductive rights i went and researched. with recent events i've heard about i knew i could find information on that and that would also help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to form an outline for my piece. >> i took a very methodical approach to this process. you could if you wanted but i think that really was a piece as dense as this type of ticket it's just the process of reworking and reworking. osha to come up with what my actual theme was i was doing research at the same time and i was coming up with ideas to what i could feel.

i would come up with an idea, that would be a great shot. i would think about that end up getting a new idea, something else to focus on. so the whole process is just about going onto other things and stretching what does work and keep going until you finally get what is the finished project. >> your message to washington, d.c., tell us, what is the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address in 2017? our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grades six through 12 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven minute documentary. include some c-span programming and also explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and share between 150 students and 53 teachers. the grand prize of $5000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20, 2017.

mark your calendars and help us spread the word to student film makers. for more information go to our website studentcam.org. >> now we have more from c-span coverage of state political races. connecticut u.s. senate candidates, richard blumenthal and daniel carter took part in a recent debate. they answered questions on a bright of topics including original notification, the health care law, corporate tax reform and how to fix a gridlock. wfsb posted of this debate. it's about one hour. ♪ ♪ >> good morning and thanks for joining us on this very special edition of his estate, a tiny senate debate featuring richard blumenthal and dan carter. i'm susan raff. >> this debate will be what our

with no commercial interruption. we will be live streaming on wfsb.com. we welcome your comments during today's debate. each can about two minutes and each question with a one minute rebuttal. let's meet the candidates speak with senator richard blumenthal and for the republicans state representative dan carter. >> welcome gentlemen. spin thank you for joining us on face the morning. >> a coin toss has determined send blumenthal will be asked the first question would begin with that now. one of the first the first responsibilities of the next president of economic summit he is a supreme court. if president trump or president clinton came to an asked for suggestions for potential justice from connecticut, who would you recommend and what about the cases they presided over quote indicates to you he or she would be i could just about what your choice be better than your opponents of the speakers let me say first of all thank you for having us. thank you to wfsb for giving us

this opportunity to speak today to the people of connecticut and thanks to everyone from connecticut who is listening. i believe that merrick garland is a supremely well-qualified candidate for the supreme court but most important this has to be a decision by the president as to the best qualifying in the country. i can think of a number of candidates in connecticut. the united states attorney for connecticut is one who has the credentials and background, but i believe that the united states senate must do its job before the end of this year and have a hearing, hold a vote. it's a constitutional duty of the supreme court and the fit of the supreme court to do its job is to directly to the instruction is a of the

republican majority. i was a law clerk on the united states supreme court and i was united states attorney and have argued cases before the court. i have extraordinary respect and reverence for the court we need to fill that vacancy assess possible because a deadlock is damaging for the whole country that's what i've been leading the fight to a point and confirm the next justice for the united states supreme court your i cannot deadlock on the court simply insects that branch of government with the kind gridlock we've seen all too often and all too prevalent in the legislative branch. and i believe the united states supreme court should do its job, hold a hearing, have a vote and confirm merrick garland to be on the united states supreme court. >> mr. carter, two minutes. >> think he very much for our dissent thank as well because as we know has been difficult to