and non- government entities. he completed at december's career in the coast guard and in 2010 served as a national incident commander for the deep water horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico. >> it's great to be here today. i have a discussion with some folks from the automotive industry leslie in my comments were that this is a very, very important time to be talking about connected vehicles and what is noted with autonomous vehicles. some of the events that i worked in my career i think what were seen as a convergence of information technology. we had issues with industrial control systems. anything that is connected to the internet to get anywhere on the internet as we know. i believe it's really important that we start to understand complexity is a risk. they enable us to do a lot of things but it creates a larger

attack surface with the autonomous vehicles and mobility. the access to the internet. our providing challenges that are unique to each particular type of industry. it needs to be addressed holistically. they operate on a dynamic position. in the systems in the transportation systems. so this is a very press he had time to have this conversation and i applaud everybody here that is being involved. thank you mr. allen. a round of applause for mister allen being here. i apologize for the sandals. i have some work done on my feet last week. he is been the commissioner of a federal trade commission

since april of 2014 and she has been outspoken about the consequences and the importance of data security. prior to joining the commission. they'd see served as chief counsel. for the u.s. department of justice and antitrust division. thank you. >> thank you so much for having me today. it's such an honor to be on this incredible panel to discuss such an important issue. i really think that it's for pulling together the cyber security summit. it's a very timely conversation as we just alluded to. i'm from that the federal trade commission and i'm here to help you i'm in a start with the usual disclaimer. i have some colleagues that are also trade commissioners. i will say the following. we are primarily the enforcer. generally when we think about

the automotive industry our relationship has been advertising claims issues around marketing to consumers and pricing and things like that. but over the last 25 years as consumers have moved from brick-and-mortar we've actually become the data protection privacy and security enforcer. i'm here also on behalf of consumers to say look were at this incredibly credible moment where the security of these vehicles is can be as can be a prominent consumer trust issue. and i think we have an incredible opportunity here. as was discussed earlier this morning the automobile industry has to catch up very quickly to some of the lessons i haven't learnt about cyber security and the information technology industry. but i think it's well-positioned to do so we just need to avoid some of the pitfalls that we have learned

in other industries we need to avoid things like criminalizing hacking. and we need to think about what some of the best practices are that are sissies with good cyber security hygiene. we talk about starting with security and security by design as a think about how to take our lessons learned from over 500 security and privacy cases and apply them as guidance we had generated a document that's relevant i think for the auto industry but also for the internet of things industry and the mobile and add space. it articulates ted -- ten relatively easy principles. a round of applause. [applause]. gary peters was first elected

in 2008 and worked on the survival of the u.s. auto industry here in the area during one of the darkest economic days. among his many duties. he serves on the senate commerce side. as well as the homeland security and governmental affairs committee detroit michigan as his backyard. and thank you for the kind invitation to be here and be here with this panel. you mentioned bringing dc to detroit. the last plane here and the first out. and i'm home every weekend. i'm very excited about what's happening a lot of changes in the last few years. but the fact that we are now on the cusp of incredible new technologies and vehicle to vehicle. to transform how we get from point a 2. b. this is the most disruptive

technology since henry ford have the first car. it's a really big deal. certainly am to be focused on making sure most all of that stays here in michigan. we want you all to be part of what's happening here. as we work through this from the senate and congress perspective as we work with our regulators this is a very disruptive technology we bake and serious policy issues. it's clear the technology is moving at an unprecedented rate. in the excitement that i get we see that self driving cars coming out in just a matter of a few years. we are seen incredible advances now. it's happening a lot quicker than the public really appreciate what's happening. and that's why it's so

important we do this right. i'm a believer in what can happen here. i think it's can be incredible for safety where we can eliminate up to 80% of not impaired crashes. it's gonna be incredible to see that happen. but if you don't get it right there's can gonna be a big setback. i think about cyber security in particular and how failure is not an option. it is can have the highest bar of anybody in cyber. i was in hearing the earlier panel and they talked about breaches in every financial company has a breach even though they adopt best practices. i get that. if someone takes your money out of your bank account it's really a bad thing. if someone tries your car into a wall. if that happens all of the incredible things that are happening with the industry

and the technology will come to a halt pretty quick. it's not something that anybody in this room wants. the technology will go backwards. and we will not realize as quick as we should need to in order to see the benefits happen. we're expecting big things from all of you in this room. we have to be able to deal with the cyber attacks in at a time when the technology is going so rapidly particularly in the area of artificial and telogen's at spy as a policymaker i personally have problems just setting standards. i think as soon as we set standards there can be exceeded and it could be an accelerated rate how do we keep up with that. is it just best practices and how we make sure that everybody in the system is doing that. i do a lot of work on the

financial side of as well. they take the path of least resistance. some of them had been subcontractors that got through. they get through to the financial system. if the seal to seal all of that and the same things can have to occur through the auto industry. i look for to being your partner together and help this country grow. in a very positive way for any type of failure. [applause]. finally dr. mark was sworn in in late 2014. a passionate safety proponent.

in the member of the ntsb. he founded alertness solution. not to be ignored is the fact that he was also automotive news all-star. the first time our publication has picked a regulator as the industry leader of the year. and thanks for the invitation to be here. i'm just in a separate into my role. it's always in the contract that i thought with 35,200. the number of lives we live's lost in our roadways and 2015. that is the context. that's why we are so forward leading with all of that great technology and i think testing is a way to think about this. there are ways for them out there. that is a spot that we are focused on i would also to say this is an issue where

government and industry this is a place where there are no conflicts with to be complementary in everything were doing its one where the traveling public safety is central to everything we to find ways to make sure we see all kinds of great action already start. one of the areas where were on the same side. where to find ways to complement each other strength. make sure were as aggressive as possible in this agreement. or where look to be just cooperative and find ways to protect the traveling public. for us it's all about that safety. i thought that mary really set the tone for this discussion by saying this is one of the most serious challenges that

we face. and maybe you can elaborate a little bit more on that. and she said seven per household the conductivity of the vehicle, what you think is the biggest obstacle that needs to be addressed here going forward? >> the first thing is just the volume. i think that's the biggest challenge we have. it was about this time last year and another meeting where we were talking cyber security in the morning. and a wired article came out in the afternoon. give us a couple of lessons. one was within days we have a recall. we already had tools to go after it. it gets to what everybody is already concerned about. how to go after that. it is just the volume of what

we're trying to protect. and given the pace of change that's can add to the complexity of where all of those vulnerabilities i can be. it's can be this large volume that is kind of finding where those vulnerabilities are. many markers of where were dealing with. you mentioned the government and speed in the issue right there. oftentimes we don't associate that. the other thing is. they lined up a hundred percent. to line up the speed factor related to regulations. how do you equalize those two. i think it picked up what the administrator talked about. it is a different paradigm then you look at. there can you can set a bar

and asked companies to get there and however they do it the technology to get there that is great. is great. t just hit that bar. with the changes i mentioned in my opening comment with ai in the deep learning and all that. we need to collaborate with regulators. our ones that i explore. as the number one national security threat that we have. they are incredible resources at the federal government. the coast guard and others. we have the department of defense is doing a great deal of work. they need to be heard. my concern that i worry about and things i say up at night are not as much the hacker in

the basement although i'm concerned about them and the impact they may have i'm also concerned about state actors that are engaged in highly sophisticated cyber attacks on us that you have to defend against. when you consider a connected fleet of cars this is a true and national security vulnerability. we need to lose some sleep over. we've to work collaboratively together. they can work in a collaborative way. working with regulators but working with the expertise that we have to work with our partners in private industry. to make your view is that the best practice needs to be sought out and how you address that. to. >> one of the things that we have really learned after being decades worth of data security cases there is that the security is highly dynamic space.

we have really been adopting a very processed base approach to what is reasonable security. starting with the security means building from the beginning. you are right. it is a highly dynamic space. i'm thinking right now as a senate report from a couple of years ago that said i am large the auto industry hasn't adopted testing necessarily. this is changing very rapidly. i think now especially with the work that has been done over the last year one would recognize the best practices are involving very rapidly. we need to make sure that whatever framework is adopted understands that they will continue to evolve -- evolve rapidly. there is so much learning that has gone on around security from the information technology industry lessons that need to be learned very rapidly by the automobile industry but the capacity is there. i had been a very outspoken advocate for making sure that

we think about working collaboratively with researchers because one of the things that we do have in this country is a really valuable resource. i'm not talking about that irresponsible once but we have the ability to work with people who had excellent techniques and are really skilled and can be valuable resources in making sure that we can make our products as safe for consumers as possible. i think we have to think about responsible disclosure statements and other mechanisms for crowd sourcing some of this work. because that's ever to get our best and most secure environment. >> you spent time in offshore drilling any mention that in your opening and now you're involved in other operations where you are seen incidences in other industries. tell us a little bit about what this industry might be able to learn from what you've encountered.

>> let me underscore what has been sent by other panelists here. regulation is not necessarily the answer. the code of federal regulations is the sum of all real and perceived market failures. they don't look forward. i tried for years as a, not to do performance and cut down five or six eight years to get regulation out. there is an a set of history amongst that cycle now. and what you need to do with that. this notion of code production will make the system safer is what we have to focus on. in its everywhere. offshore drilling in the dynamic positioning is not only it not together but geo location as well. it's another issue that could be discussed. i think the right way to do this is the means of production reside in the private sector this needs to

be a negotiated coproduced outcome you will get it quicker you will get better and you can avoid some of the pitfalls we have to when had to go to the regulatory process or legislation as a senator said. i don't think there's any doubt that you're on the right path here. when you look at three critical technology everybody knows about. six, eight in ten years to get through the regulatory that is not nimble and flexible. ..

>> which we should, and we have to be aggressive to do that, but you also have to stop the sophisticated state actors that are engaged in activities really in my mind often times could be even an act of war to break in and steal secrets, private information, types of activities that we have to say enough is enough. and the world community has to come together and identify, and let's be frank, there are only a few -- there's a handful that we really know are engaged in these and say there will be significant actions taken against those countries that engage in these types of activities on a systemic way, and that would be sanctions or other types of enforcement mechanisms. but i think it's got to be two-pronged. there's got to be enforcement,

which is what government does, it enforces when people do bad things and have penalties associated with it. but we have to think much broader given the extent of the challenges from sophisticated state actors that will have the ability, especially as we get more interconnected in the internet of things. as the panelists have mentioned, everyone knows our vulnerabilities go up dramatically if we have increased vulnerabilities, we have to be prepared to punish those who are trying to penetrate into that system. >> the previous panel talked a lot about the best practices that were just released from isac and a number of them, seven of them, governance risks, security, threat detection, awareness and training and collaboration. i'll start with you, commissioner, how would you feel about some -- or what's your reaction to some of those best practices with -- >> they sound really similar to the types of best practices that we've been really underscoring in our start with security initiative that nhtsa's

underscored in its framework. and again, i think what's important is they're technology-neutral, and they're process-oriented. so the ftc which is not a regulator, but is an enforcer, can bring cases when we decide that consumers' data is not securely held. and that's primarily what we do. we're bringing cases under a standard that is reasonabl security. it's not perfect security. but we are trying to articulate what we think the best practices are particularly for the internet of things base as the senator mentioned which really increases the vulnerability of consumers and even the devices like cars they'll be connecting in to those things. so what we're trying to do is say, look, there are a set of best practices here. they involve a serious commitment from the highest levels to make sure that they're being built in and that they're being resourced properly and that responsible decisions are made. but the good news is we know a lot about how to do this really well, and we need to make sure that we make good choices and

then avoid, i would say, making errors based on not understanding best practices in security or not really understanding the technology. and i would hold the government to that same standard as well. we need to make sure that we don't pass laws that really make the securities process harder for achieving it here in the auto space. >> and on the government side of things, mark, there's been just increased collaboration even involving academia, right? can you talk a little bit about those efforts and trying to get security researchers, industry, academia all onboard? >> sure. we -- and everybody stay calm, but i really want to credit the industry, because i think in january when the secretary announced the proactive safety principles, you know, one of those four pillars was cybersecurity. and be just two aspects of that. one was an openness to enge the research community, the white hats, basically, and we've been seeing that. just in the last few weeks, new bounty programs and stuff. it's translated from an agreement in a room to, like,

concrete things that are going on. there's all kinds of interactions about pressures and things that have been going on. and i would say, in fact, right after that was announced, about a week later, we had a small round table of 300-plus people in washington to kind of work on nhtsa's approach to what it's going to look like from best practices. and the secretary will talk about that later this afternoon. but i'd also like to give credit to nhtsa. the associate administrator in his office, we were just talking about nhtsa's been hacking for about 15 years. we have got to get into these safety control systems to figure out what's going on. so we've been there for a long time and have done a lot of stuff to push people, etc. having said that, though, for all the meetings in progress, i would say the other part is it's not enough. and that's one of the challenges we have, again, just for the number, 265 million vehicles that are out there right now. and that will change as we get to ride-sharing, other kinds of mobility models, etc. but if they're connected be and there's all kinds of automation in there, even one of -- each

one of those is a vulnerable. i want to make sure we have credit for all the work that's been going on, but at the same time say we've got to do more. nimble and flexible are the watch words going forward. at point, i want to give -- at this point, i want to give a lot of credit to everybody who's being collaborative, but we're going to need some new models. for nhtsa it's usually swinging a big stick. this is not an arena, except for those bad actors, this is a place where industry and government are on the same side, and we have to find ways to make it ab open is system for -- an open system for communications. >> steve gave you a lot of kudos for the collaborative efforts and the previous panel. but what more can you do from your side to make that more of a collaborative environment with the industry? >> sure. and i think that's -- when we come out with any kind of our own guidance, we have to make sure that they are complementary with whatever the industry's doing. so we don't want to repeat

stuff, interfere with stuff, we've got to find ways they are complementary. the other is in, i think, a lot of direct conversations. nat and i were just meeting with industry leaders last week saying this is not a trick. we want you to report stuff so you can get 'em fixed. we need to be part of that conversation. so i think, again, that's kind of new for the industries which is built around a lot of competition. this is more about cooperation. but, again, i think this is one where we're all on the same side, and everybody's got to be comfortable knowing this is all for sort of one channel of good rather than thinking, again, we're after other pieces around the edges. we have to do this collaboratively, or the traveling american public will receiver. >> just want to -- will suffer. just want to encourage everybody to submit questions on cards in front of you if you want those posed up here. adam, you were with automakers last night, you've lived on both sides of the fence now, you've been in government as well as where you are now. how do both groups come together?

what's the best way to make that happen, that collaborative instinct? >> well, as i said earlier, i think it's becoming a blurred line between what the government's responsible for and is capable of doing and what the means of production lie in the private sector. the government doesn't do offshore oil and gas explorations. when we had the problem with the oil well, we we had to rely, wih government oversight, on the private sector doing its job. over the last few months, the process by which the industry came together and started working in advance of dealing with regulators to come up with the best solution they could, and they're voluntary in standards. but the conversation may be more important than anything else, because it's going to have to change and evolve and become more agile. and i think that's not just in the automobile industry, it's probably everything having to do with the government, private sector interface moving forward because there's this asymmetry that keeps forming as i told you earlier about the rapid advance of technology and the ability to

absorb that not only on the government regulatory side, but in the conversation between industry and the government so everybody's meeting their requirements. i think we need to go back and look and see if it can be enhanced. i is so -- iso saturdays, and if you don't have to create a new standard, i think we could be doing that as well. >> okay. >> can i just jump in on this question really quickly? i want to underscore the points that have been made that i think there's been rapid progress in the industry doing voluntary work, the isac, obviously, good example. there's also some voluntary privacy guidelines that were agreed to. this is really promising. but i want to just underscore the fact that we need to not just build in a really professional security infrastructure in our automobile manufacturing companies and in our supply chains. these are also issues, and it was highlighted a little bit at the end of the last panel, of privacy and data ethics as well. so what we're seeing in some of these other technology sectors is a real recognition of

building with privacy in mind, building with security in mind and building now increasingly with data in mind as well. so i think there are whole new lines of kind of professions in the autobile industry that are really going to emerge, and they need to emerge relatively quickly given the speed at which this tremendous transformation is taking place. because at the end of the day, you know, the regulators are here and enforcers are here, the government is here, but mostly this is about consumers trusting the products and wanting to buy them. and i think that's the biggest stick in the room. >> which, jason, if i can just very quick, one of the things we're hearing that's gown to be a challenge.coming -- going to be a challenge coming up is the increase in the number of resources available. you know, the best practices and the guidances and all the different things coming out -- >> work force shortage as well. >> and expertise, you know, that's going to be one of the challenges facing everybody, i think, is trying to figure out how this is going to get integrated and that we're smooth and effective in that agile

response to things that come up. >> questions are flying in. senator peters, you said failure is not an option. will the auto industry be held liable for cybersecurity failures? >> i believe they will. and and that's why failure's not an option for folks. those are some, you know, these are some of the broad policy issues that i alluded to in my opening comments with this technology's moving. there's liability issues. the insurance industry, how is this going to change insurance? will companies be on the line, privacy issues that are there. there's just these whole host of issues that are out there that have to to be resolved if we ext the technology to be fully utilized going forward. i think there's no question that industry will be hit. if there's a cyber attack and people get injured, there's going to be costs related to that. but i think -- and also what i mentioned in my initial comments is that consumer acceptance won't be there. it'll be dead in its tracks if you have some of these accidents.

and i saw a recent report or survey that said 50, i think it's over a majority of people don't want anything to do with autonomous vehicles right now. and an even bigger majority want to still have the steering wheel, still take human contact of it. folks are are very leery, unless you ask a millennial. [laughter] but folks my age and others don't want to do that. there's already hesitancy, so if you have a cyber attack that leads to a catastrophic result, that company's going to be in trouble, but the whole industry -- everybody is in this. that's why we're talking about collaborative. we're all in this together which is why we've got to test together. it's a whole different business model, in my view, and you're the experts here, where it's not just pettive advantage. you have to work together in order to protect the entire industry, or you're going to be in trouble. >> may i just add it's not just the large scale cyber attack, though those are certainlier the orfying. at the ftc, we're looking at

ransom ware, so you can think of nuisance attacks as an equally annoying vector for consumers. >> mark, did you want -- i'm sorry. >> i think we also need to start looking at standard of care and behavior. there's a driver and passengers many there somewhere. and really, i don't want to overstate this, we actually buy computers with a ship attached. if you think about the notion of a computer with a car attached, you need to start think about dual factor operation, what is the responsibility of the operator and the passengers. >> the question about liability already exists. so last year when the jeep was hacked, a defect was called within days. if it's an unreasonable risk to safety, we don't just regulate, we enforce. so those tools are already there. >> and we also enforce. >> yeah. [laughter] >> right. you don't enforce. you used to. >> not anymore. >> yeah. senator peters, should we expect partisan politics to obstruct the pace of cybersecurity changes in the auto industry, and if so, on what issues?

>> well, let's say i hope not. hopefully, we can rise above that. i don't know where the partisanship will rise, but i'm always amazed as how -- >> sometimes it just does. >> it just does, yeah. so sometimes logic doesn't factor in to some of this process. [laughter] it shouldn't. to me, this is a basic d well, first and foremost, it's a basic safety issue that we're going to be able to save lyes. and -- save lives. and saving 80% in the short run is a big, big deal. not to mention the hundreds of thousands of folks who are injured with serious injuries every, on a continuous basis. so, hopefully, that's something we can all rally behind and understand how important that is. but then if you just look at some of the transformations of the economy in terms of efficiency, what that's going to mean as far as productivity and how that will be directly translated into a growing economy. it'll mean we change our infrastructurewe may not have to invest as much and save federal money which usually that should be a bipartisan issue. if we can put more automobiles

on any given amount of pavement because of these safety features, we don't have to build extra lanes, you can do that in a safe way. i mean, there's all sorts of advantages that will accrue to the government that will hopefully bring us together. >> everyone knows, obviously, the details of the tesla model s, and, mark, you came out last week -- perhaps it was even this week -- and said no one incident will stop nhtsa from promoting highly elevated driving development. but the question is, do we need to slow adoption of vehicle technology given that instance? >> thank you for that question phrased just right. because i will not make any comments about open investigations. but it was on wednesday, and it was -- we've been relatively silent on the issue generally, and i appreciate, actually, highlighting it here as well, because whether it's technology development, cybersecurity issues, the secretary, d.o.t., nhtsa has been very clear about our leaning forward because of the safety opportunities here.

and we look to knowing that there will be incidents, but we cannot wait for perfect. we will lose too many more lives while we're waiting for perfect. and just scientists, 35,200 last year, over two million injuries. you know, five million crashes. this is what we're talking about, and the toll it takes in lives, money, our society is just tremendous. and so we've got to be able to move forward to do everything we can. i keep bringing this up because last year, 2015, the number of fatalities went up about 8%. that's the first time in a decade. in fact, it went down 25% for a decade. so last year we lost one-third of that progress. we cannot keep it flat. we can't even double down. in fact, i said we're in a bad place. it's not like we're in a bad place making it look better. we should be desperate to save lives. >> how does the rest of the panel feel on autonomous vehicles? senator peters, you founded the senate smart transportation

caucus, bipartisan group that is looking at innovation. you also have the national test center that you've announced for willow run. do you want to talk a little bit about that? >> that'd be great. thank you for that opportunity. it's something that i'm certainly focusing a lot on, and we've been engaging partners in that as well as in the industry. and that's the importance of having a national testing and validation facility where we can put these new technologies through their paces before they get out on the road, do simulations but also are the track where they can work. and it is, it's a new paradigm for us as well in how we test these applications, in my mind. you know, in the past or even currently every company, every company represented here, you have test tracks where you test your vehicles, but you're testing them, quite frankly, for competitive advantage, and you hide them in m income flanneling and -- in camouflage and have the next product that's going to give you advantage over your competitors. but in this area, you all have to talk to each other.

so toyota has to talk to gm, and gm has to talk to a nissan and etc. 9 so you all have to be in one place where that is occurring. we're hoping that place will be here in michigan. the center for mobility is one that we're working on which is in addition to the m city which currently exists at the university of michigan. this new center will be the willow run facility, the old willow run that was part of the arsenal of democracy that turned out b-24 bombers to win the second world war, and now it could be the place to usher in this incredible new technology to bring folks together. we're asking the secretary of transportation, department of transportation to put out a competition for that national testing and validation site. i personally believe, no surprise, that michigan should be the place. it has the most competitive, all of the auto companies are here, the major big three, the foreign manufacturers, we've got toyota in ann arbor, nissan in farmington hills, honda in northern ohio, it's located

here, plus the suppliers. we also have a very vibrant defense sector here in michigan with land systems. obviously, autonomous vehicles in the defense space is very important. it allows us to use drones. all of that is located here, and to put that all together in one place. we're hoping to get that competition and designation by the end of the year. >> is there anything that defense can learn from automakers in this, in this area of cybersecurity? admiral? how do you feel? >> well, i -- >> could there be some sharing? we're talking a lot about, obviously -- >> well, i think there's already work being done in dod about autonomous vehicles, and obviously res deucing the threat to people in -- reducing the threat to the people in aircraft or trucks, anything else, if you can move supplies and achieve your operational objectives without human lives being involved. but beyond that, i think there's probably something else here. we focused on safety x that should be the most important thing we talked about. there's probably a chance to do

a little bit of a leapfrog in technology related to not only infrastructure, but how we want this world to work in the future. the highway trust fund cannot support if we're going to get off fossil fuels. faa's looking at next gen. more efficiently and productively using our transportation systems. and i think we may be offered a chance to leapfrog a generation of technology in deciding what we want our new air space and highways to look like if we ca integrate this technology in and not only look at the safety aspects regarding saving lives, but how we can actually make it more efficient, environmentally friendly and lower cost world that we all live in. >> okay. commissioner sweeney, you've been asked to elaborate on some of your views on the criminalization of hacking. >> oh, okay. >> you mentioned that in the beginning. can you expand on that? >> yeah. this falls in the category of government should do no harm. so we shouldn't pass laws that are actually going to be harmful to the evolution of really good security being wrapped around all of this amazing technology that we're going to have in the

automotive space. and one of the things that we've learned in the information technology space after decades of fighting hackers is that, you know, hackers are going to hack. and, in fact, some of the best, most efficient investments in security research can be made by crowd sourcing and taking advantage of that incentive. we see already, i think it was discussed quite well in the panel just before this and we see some really prominent companies and even the pentagon embracing this kind of model because, actually, it's a very efficient security investment as well. and so i think we want to make sure that we don't pass state laws and we don't pass federal laws that make that kind of research and work impossible to do. absolutely, there should be responsible disclosure. absolutely, there shouldn't be bad actors that are doing bad things. totally don't want to facilitate that. but there's such a thing as really drawing too broad a restriction. and so that's what i'm talking about. and i think we need to be careful not to do that, because

the fact is, i mean, i've been going to hacker conferences for years, and i wasn't at all surprised by the gpac. sorry if -- by the jeep hack. sorry if many people in the room were. cars are a huge target, they're going to continue to be a target. it's not going to matter what kind of laws we pass at the state or federal level. what we need to be focused on is maximizing the work that we can do with the research community and bringing it in to the security processes that we have and taking advantage of it. >> mark's nodding in agreement. where do you see enforcement going in the future? will there be a focus on prosecution for lack of process rather than failure? what do you think? >> probably the place to start readjusting is, as you know, over the last year and a half there's been a real push to move the auto industry to proactive safety culture. and cybersecurity's a perfect example of the challenge there which is, you know, there's a vulnerability, it's penetrated

and then it's reactive. and the challenge is how do you harden those at least where you'd know. and so i think from a proactive standpoint, we're going to want to do everything we can on the front end. but one of the things i think we've all learned is it needs to be balanced so when people do violate, you've got to be there and make sure everybody knows that will not be tolerated. >> and i mean, if i could just add, in the ftc in terms of our data security cases, you know, our standard is reasonable, it is not perfect. and it is very process-oriented. but as the processes around security have become more established, we are looking at things like whether you have responsible disclosure programs, whether you're responding to -- [inaudible] when they're disclosed in a timely way. and these kinds of processes are starting to be very important in our assessment of practices are republican. >> as a recovering nasa scientist, i was around a lot of the early anonymous reporting

systems, basically, with limited immunity. and i know in a panel earlier today, that came up, those are the kind of collaborative conversations we have to have make sure that proactive safety means we find ways to get those reports -- reported in a way to help with absolutely innocenters. -- vulnerabilities. we have to have the enforcement strength to make sure they don't repeat that kind of activity. >> question for the commissioner again. should there be liability protections for companies working on a disclosed vulnerability? should there be criminal or civil protection for researchers who coordinate their disclosure? >> i think that's a really interesting area, and i think we need to learn a lot more about how to set up mechanisms that are going to facilitate that kind of relationship, right? so i think just to pick up on the administrator's point, i think what we want to do is find ways to have security researchers be able to conduct their research, but also have a mechanism whereby companies can have time to assess that research, test the research,

make sure that it's valid, figure out the right response and, you know, also notify customers that it's actually a breach situation as well. so these are really complicated areas, and i think that we can collectively come up with a good solution that really protects the first principles here which is facilitating the collaboration and also facilitating the responsible disclosure and, you know, making sure that one side's responsive but has time also to make sure that response is adequate and sensible. >> kind of a general question for the panel. how do you square the protection of intellectual property rights with the sharing of information and best practices? admiral allen? what do you -- how do you feel? >> well, i think there's a process and a content dimension to this. if you have the communication lines open and you're having the conversations that resulted in the best practices that was issued here, you basically have done the equivalent of removing the attribution of things that

might be proprietary, and you're focusing on the generic ways that you need to attack the problem. and i think that's probably the way to think about it. it'll play itself out differently in the specific situation that you're talking about, but i don't think, i don't think that's a bar, and i don't think that's your reason why this can't move forward and this conversation can't be as robust as it has been. >> i'll just add in the proactive safety principles, one of the pillars had to do with anonymous data sharing. and be i think we have two great examples for the industry to look at. one is this area where once you get rid of all that confidential business proprietary stuff, this is a huge amount of data that can be shared anonymously that everybody can benefit from. the second example are edge cases in automated vehicles, things that happen out there that are relatively unique that everybody could benefit from. again with, no real issue about confidential business types of information, but the kind of thing that everybody -- i do this having been very fortunate

to have gotten to know the last man who walked on the moon, i'm never going to learn about all the things that could kill me. learn from everyone else's mistakes so you don't have to make them yourself. so i think those edge cases and cybersecurity are perfect examples of where the industry could establish anonous data sharing to the benefit of all. >> yeah, it's right at the heart of information sharing on the larger issue of cyber cybersecurity. what you want is to tell them what to do to protect themselves. you don't have sources and methods on how to obtain the information. you can separate those two. >> senator peters, i want to go back to state laws, and how do you avoid a patchwork of state laws that may otherwise inhibit advancement or adoption of certain technologies? >> well, i think that's a significant threat to this technology moving forward, is that we will have a patchwork of ste laws. you've seen some states pass those. michigan passed one, it's very forward-thinking, however.

but there'll be overs that are coming out, which is why i think it's incumbent on the federal government, congress to come forward and put a federal guidelines out there or federal law that preempts state laws that's similar to, you know, fuel economy standards. you can't have every state having it own fuel economy standards. the same occurs with this industry across the board. so that is something that we will definitely have to work on and pass. >> and my experience with the coast guard, the best premise you had to make regulation is when industry came to you and said we don't want 50. >> right. >> then you know that's the time there's probably a role for government. >> and, unfortunately, what we know from the privacy and data security space is that we have 47 different data breach laws and 37 different student data laws. so it is an area where you see a myriad of states taking action relatively quickly, and i expect we'd see the same thing over time here. >> so, jason, in january the secretary announced that d.o.t. and nhtsa would be putting out guidance in this area, and there

were four elements. one was operational guidance, how do you get these vehicles on the road safely, the second was model state policy. so we have been working with the associate of administrators to basically come up with what a model state policy could look like. but i think whatever that ends up being, the question remains how do you take that model and actually see it enacted in a way that provides a consistent national framework as opposed to the patchwork? that will be the challenge going forward. >> when can we expect to see that? >> you can ask the secretary that this afternoon. [laughter] >> good answer. >> but, obviously, that model is a good template for -- it's the template for the national template that we can execute. and i think the admiral's point's well taken. it's incumbent on the industry to come forward and say let's move forward on this. this is something where we have agreement, so we don't have the partisan issues, etc., that was brought up in a previous question to that we can get that done. that's -- back to my main point, the policy has been to be moving

on a parallel track here with the technology, otherwise it could come to a halt pretty quick, and this is a critical piece of that. >> senator peters, let me stay with you for a minute here. we just have a few more moments left on the panel. will cybersecurity be the new topic of trade agreements? >> will it be a topic of trade agreements? >> yeah. >> well, i think it should be. it certainly has to be part of the discussion as i mentioned earlier. you have state actors particularly who engage in very sophisticated cyber activities, to steal secrets and use industrial espionage to leapfrog their efforts, you know? we would consider those kinds of things an act of war mostly in the past, we need to consider that as well. ..

>> recent issue with microsoft that that's brought to light that this is a virtual industry. you are connected, ubiquitously around the world and i think that's next conversation on how do you square what we are doing domestically in the united states . >> senator, what specific actions should the us take against actors that hack the dod or private industry? >> i don't have that framework now where we should go. some of the normal tools are sanctions that could be brought against countries so that's an additional framework that's used and maybe that's something along those lines. as far as how that would be, the severity of the attack, you'd have a better understanding knowing who was

behind it and some covenant to prove that. you have all thosekinds of issues because you're dealing with diplomatic issues in addition to law enforcement. but there are tools that are available . >> following the sony hack there was an executive order issued to identify malicious cyber activity. the government from time to time define that and i think they will know it when they see it but under that it allows for the state department and treasury to issue sanctions against people who engage in malicious cyber activity there's a case where we can establish what the threshold would be. >> i want to give in the final minutes each of you a closing comment . let's give the group in the room something to think about in the next year or two . administrator rosen, i'll start with you. what would your view be or your question to the room be

when you think about cyber security over the next couple of years. >> this particular area i think our biggest issue is going to be what we don't know. we're already trying to plan, already considering what the vulnerabilities are. i think the volume is so large, the vulnerabilities so great that what art we thinking about now that could be dangerous, i think that's a scary notion. >> if we think about it now andrunning those scenarios to come up with it , we be better positioned. changing too fast, lest we know all these things so i think we have to have a different mindset, it's not only stuff that's already happened. >> my thought is related to some of the comments i made happening with machine learning. it's clear that because of the volume of data that's out there, the volume of information and the internet of things that in order to

identify a cyber attack is very difficult area is particularly difficult in an operational area, less so in a financial area. the initial dealing for an operator, if you see something going on with the car might be a glitch in the software when it's a cyber attack so because of all the items that are going to be connected to all the cars, you're going to need machine learning at the fbi to defend on against what's happening. >> as that ai increases we know the bad folds use ai to fight ai systems. they're going to have two ai systems going at each other. the science fiction is going to be scientific reality as it goes forward so how do cyber security defend, use ai to defend but understand are going to be fighting ai systems that will be sophisticated against your ai . >> i'm not so worried about the robots taking over the world although i think that is something we need to, i

think it's a really important concern and i'm glad you're doing it, i'm really hopeful. i can't wait for the day i send my car to the doctors appointment and pick up my kids. i already need it now. so i guess my message would be, the issue has become one over the last year, that cyber security isn't the chief security officer sitting over a computer program taking about security anymore. it is the core center of this business. so is privacy and so is data ethics and there are a lot of these resources and in this country we have to tap that leadership on these issues and i think the auto industry is really well-positioned to take advantage of meaning. and i am hopeful we are going to get there but the one method to leave would be consumers are the heart of this and they are essential

to adoption and we absolutely need to be paying attention to resource appropriate at every level. >> the last word is yours. >> that's a great segue. i think we need to find of complement the discussion with the people centric view of this and what behaviors are involved in all of this. my grandson usually is glued to the couch playing video games as i run around the backyard, i asked my wife while he was chasing those pokcmon characters, at least he was getting exercise. [laughter] i think the interface between human beings and information technology and ot, in my view is the psychological equivalent of climate change, i'm not sure i understand it. the science and technology advisor of the present says e way you react to climate change as you suffer and manage. i suspect this is the social logical equivalent of the it. >> around of applause for our panel, thank you very much. [applause]

>> more live programming coming up today on the c-span network. another panel looking at the presidential transition, the council on foreign relations is the host and that's 6:30 on c-span. we looked again live at trump tower in new york city where as you can see there's a good security presence there. you can see the security gate up in front of the tower, members of the media , onlookers and protesters out there. the electronic bill as he is continuing meeting with potential choices. this about his cabinet. the associated press reporting that one of those who met with mister trump was former governor mary fell in. she's being considered for the head of the interior department according to trump aid kelly and conway. also scott brown of massachusetts stated he's

under consideration to become veterans affairs secretary and as we reported, hawaiian punishment kelsey gabbard had a meeting with donald trump today, she released a statement afterwards that said she had a frank and positive conversation with mister trump as they discussed a variety of foreign-policy issues area we are now inside trump tower. she said i will not hesitate to express disagreement with mister trump, however i believe we can disagree strongly that come together on issues that matter to the american people and affect their daily lives. peters is the congressman down damages under consideration for us ambassador. and we will continue to watch and report on potential cabinet members as they come and go while this process continues.>>. [inaudible conversation] >> tonight on the communicators, former

commissioners robert mcdowell and michael copps on how the f cc could change under the trump communication and a look at the communications issues they could be facing. >> we're smarter as a country, we will start to tackle those with the future of the internet going beyond net neutrality. what does it mean artificial intelligence, what does it mean for jobs? what about the consolidation and commercialization? >> i sense business data services and also an item where there wasn't any sort of unanimity or consensus among democrats for starters is probably also not going to get off the ground. >> watch the communicators tonight at eastern on c-span2. >> here are some of our featured programs thursday, thanks giving day on c-span2. after 11 am eastern, nebraska senator ben sachs on american values.

and the purpose of government . >> there's a huge civic mindedness in americanhistory but it's not compelled by the government. >> followed at noon with former senator tom harkin on healthy food and the rise of childhood obesity in the us . >> for everything from monster steak burgers two 1420 calories and 107 grams of fat to 20 ounce coke and pepsi, 12 to 15 teaspoons of sugar, feeding an epidemic of child obesity. >> then 3:30, wikipedia founder jimmy wales talks about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and the challenge of providing global access to information. >> once there's 1000 entries, i know there's a small community there. there's 5 to 10 really active users, there's another 20 to 30 that they know a little bit and they start thinking of themselves. >> and a little after seven eastern, in inside look at

the year-long effort to repair and restore the capitol dome. at eight, justice elaine kagan reflects on her life and career. >> then i did my thesis which was a great thing to have done, it taught me an incredible amount also taught me what it was like to be a serious historian and sit in archives all day, every day and i realized it wasn't for me. >> followed by justice clarence thomas at nine. >> genius is not putting a two dollar idea in a $20 symptom. putting a $20 idea in a two dollar circuit. without any loss of meeting. >> and just after 10, and an exclusive ceremony in the white house, president obama will present the medal of freedom to 21 recipients including nba star michael jordan, singer bruce springsteen, doctor sicily tyson and philanthropist bill and melinda gates. watch on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the

free c-span radio app. >> c-span: where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> this week on the communicators a discussion about the federal communications commission and the incoming trump administration. joining us our two former members of the federal communications commission, robert mcdowell, republican member of the 2006 to 2013 and michael copps, former member on the democratic side, 2001 to 2011 and served as acting chair for half a year, michael copps, you were there during a presidential transition. what's the process like, what happens at this point?

>> i think the process will bury for the incoming administration to incoming administration. you're in the middle of the transition now, we hear rumors about who's in and who's out, is there even a transition going on? i assume there is. i hope the business of the commission will continue as we go between here and january. there are a lot of items that the republican commissions and democratic commissions both have worked on in recent years and i think it's time to put some of those issues behind us. there's a whole new generation of telecommunications issues out there and if we are smart as a country, we will start to tackle those. what's the future of the internet going beyond net neutrality, what does it mean? artificial intelligence, what does it mean for jobs? what about the consolidation and commercialization, these are issues you have even broached yet so this is a time of transition. i hope we're going to focus

more on issues rather than just on who's going to be the next chairman or who will hold the most fundraisers for a specific candidate. it's such a vibrant part of the economy, such an important part and all of our lives as individuals so we need to look at fresh during this transition about what it is we are going to be doing. >> robert mcdowell, you went from being in the majority to the minority. you try to put some things through during the transition period? >> i have to say a shout out to my friend and former colleague michael copps. he was acting chairman for the first six months in 2009 and the commission was down to three commissioners with our friend jonathan edelstein taking on perhaps the most difficult job the fcc had undertaken which is the digital television transition. what we called out the error of the three amigos led by the chief of the go right here and michael copps and i,

we share all the credibility we have. michael copps and i agreed 100 percent of the time during his tenure. we had 60 votes on major items and we voted together unanimously of the three of us on all 50 of those items over six months. >> he was a unc tar heel and i was a duke blue devil. i wore my type today because it's appropriate. >> the transitions are important. during the bush to obama transition we all worked with the obama transition team. they came and visited me as a commissioner and vice versa and we talked about things such as fcc process reform. mike and i worked together on those issues as well, what could be more transparent or how doyou get more public comment , etc. so all these things are important in terms of policymaking at the nuts and bolts operations of government. you can disagree on the outcome but we should have a fair, open and transparent process.>> you know the city has gotten a lot more partisan over the last few years but harkening back to that spirit we had, i really hope that we can keep that in

mind as we move.obviously there are always a 32 vote, always division on big issues but you have to have a similar collegiality and, robbery and sometimes it seems that slips away and i think when that slips away, it's very much to the detriment and credibility of the fcc. >> has it slipped away in this current fcc? >> everything has slipped away when it comes to partisanship. most votes of the fcc are still unanimousbut when you get to the big issues, whether it's ownership or net neutrality or privacy, there's going to be artisan ship . in the personal realm, that's why for years i said let's get away from this closed meeting room that prohibits commissioners from getting together and talking about issues during the item. you can have lawyers there to keep it all above board and above suspicion and all that but i think so much of the

personal conflict that we are seeing, and this goes back before this commission, could be alleviated if commissioners would sit around the table like this. then you don't feel like throwing hangrenades at when each other. you try to look at a problem and solve the problem. >> robert mcdowell, current republican commissioner has a letter set by the commerce committee in the house, commerce committee in the senate saying hold off on controversial items during this transition period, do you agree with him? >> i do, he's a former colleague and a friend but this is tradition. doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat, the same thing happened in 2008 when barack obama was coming in. the democratic leaders of the relevant committees in congress had a similar letter to then chairman devon martin and so we ended up having our meetings sort of by teleconference. i remember the very last meeting for my former

colleague deborah chase was my phone which was kind of sad in a way. she didn't get the proper sendoff but nonetheless there were not major conflict issues tackle. we had hoped we could have reform in universal service but had to wait a few more years in the first obama chairman after fisher was in office so these are normal things, the elections happen, put your pencil down. the american people voted for a change so let's move on and big controversies will happen later. >> before we got to having a permanent chairman while i was interim chairman of the commission, we did the transition and ron and i and jonathan, we keyed up on an initiative on broadband strategy where we did some stuff on forbearance, on translators. we did quite few things and it seems to me that when something like special access for bds for example, i

remember signing letters and maybe rob was there too in 2007 promising congress that we would deal with this issue. by 2007, now it's 2017 almost, 10 years later and it's not there so at some point you have to say okay, let's go ahead and do what we've got but we can't go back and start all this research over and all this data gathering and everybody fighting about every level of data that you want to get. it's time to move on to new issues as i said at the outset. the commission needs to be operatives going to do justice to the internet and the digital age. >> let's bring brian fung of the washington post into this conversation. >> two issues in particular that have been pretty controversial that have dropped off the radar and one, bds and the other fox, do you see those coming back in 2016? >> business data services, we used to call it in the

special services, these are the big pipes that connect office buildings and the data pipes and so the wheeler fcc has wanted to regulate that more. there's the clinton era fcc that deregulated it under a price regime so i don't see that being a priority. let me caveat everything by saying when it comes to the donald trump era, the prediction business has been hard hit. nobody has predicted what happened this year so here we are, we can take our best guess. we don't know for sure but i sense that what plans kevin wheeler teed up for business data services and also the fox item where there wasn't any sort of unanimity or consensus amongthe democrats for starters, is probably also not going to get off the ground . >> i hope that's not true. i hope we can deal with it. there is an item being negotiated, i think it'sbeing discussed in dealt with

before this commission and . we are still in the early stages of analyzing with this election but to me, this was not a typical liberal or conservative contest or even republican versus democrat. if the media is correct and it's early analysis that we didn't hear a lot from the rustbelt or we didn't hear a lot reporting of what people were thinking about in world america in small-town villages, keep in mind these art employees of at&t or verizon or cox or comcast talking about, these are americans all across the country. who don't like to paying $200 a year to rent that box, who don't like all this consolidation is going on in the telecommunications industry, who don't like bills that are going up and up so i think and president-elect trump will take a close look at this too and try to figure out that and what he needs to get

involved in and what he doesn't and what really reflects the base of the people who came out to vote for him but who might be a little different than we are thinking right now in these early stages of electoral analysis. >> let's hope that the fcc restores its images and independent agency as well as division like franklin roosevelt who set it up in 1994. i think that needs to be revitalized . an independent expert agency should not be an arm of the executive branch, that's how congress set it up in the tradition so you appoint good people who understand the subject matter and let them decide what's best for congress, regardless of the outcome. i think you'll agree with me on that. that's going to be a major point for improvement . >> one question, they will be looking at who president-elect trump has

tapped to lead the transition. one big question is whether there is a tension here between more establishments type figures versus folks who want to sort of shake up the system and what's your expectation for that tension as it applies? >> i don't know what my expectation is but the first thing if we're going to carry out this independent agency is to confirm nominees forthe federal communications commission . we're down there not knowing if she's going to be a commissioner after congress goes home because the caught up quickly in partisan that the politics on capitol hill. everybody i think, democrats as well as republicans realizes her expertise, respects her expertise. there's never been a commissioner that came into that job with more diverse. and knowledge in the health vacations industry on all these things, and she's sitting out there not knowing if she's going to be on the commission in january because

of capitol hill politics. if congress was serious about this being an independent agency, we went through a process where name came up a while ago. while they vote on her and confirm her and let her do the job? that's a harsh indictment of government ethics. it's inexcusable that she's in the situation and it's inexcusable that an independent agency is held hostage to this kind of politics. i understand what happened, i understandall that but it's not the way it should be . >> do you see a path forward for commissioner reversal. >> that's up to the majority leader and send it to figure out, it's also perhaps kevin wheeler and that there are three democrats, his term as a commissioner to run out for a couple years so he hasn't within his power to make that happen potentially but when you have three democrats who could essentially be sitting on the republican commission deep into 2017 or 2018 and not know the outcome of that,

that's probably on the minds of many but back to your other point, we don't know who will be appointed to these agencies at a subcabinet level, we are taking these after we understand the election results or knew what the outcome was and the transition team is not going to turn its attention to some capital level appointments such as fcc chair for quite a while and anyone who's saying it with great conviction a nose going to be the next chair, as with these other subcabinet positions, we don't know. that's a big wildcard and maybe 30 days or so we can talk a little more intelligently about that. >> we're speaking and in fact we are taping this right before the big fcc meeting for november so we have some of the big-ticket or controversialitems are on that agenda , would they be overturned? >> absolutely. that's part of the tension here is that we talked earlier about those congressional letters. these 32 votes that have

happened over the years, a lot of those items i think be overturned, may be replaced. i think industry, public interest groups, think tanks and all of that, consumer groups especially want to make sure they know what the rules of the road are so merely repealing things every four years does it do anyone any good because investment decisions, buying decisions, consumer behavior are all influenced by what the government does so will congress step up and legislate some of this? there's a terrific opportunity over the next 18 months to do just that so if you look at the title to classification of internet access service, i think that's very right or the fcc to repeal that but will congress step in to haverules of the road two years ago , we are very close to a bipartisan consensus between a republican from south dakota and senator bill nelson, the ranking democrat

from florida on the relevant committee and i think that spirit can be read to protect an open internet and freedom, to have a win-win situation where the edge of providers over the top providers all can flourish as well as network operators having a incentive to continue to invest in what will be the internet of things . the intensification needed to make the internet of things happen under 5g so congress has a terrific opportunity here to act but most people say just repealing things and not knowing what the rules of the road art is unhealthy, what are you going to replace it with? you need to understand what the constructs will be going forward. >> for the incoming folks, they say put your pencil down and it's not coming and i understand that's just a fact of life and you have to deal with it but again, back to the independent agency, the independent agencies have been working on this in the services special access and working on that practice. >> we need a deadline set by congress, get this done and it's five, 10, 15 years later

and we have an independent commission who's dealt with it and now the item is coming to fruition and the next commission can do away with whatever they want to do away with. >> assuming they get the courts to go along with it and that opens up the whole net neutrality which we are not talking about right this second but to do its job with the evidence it has and as i said, for heavens sake, let's put some of these battles behind us. we are not selecting commission to deal with another 10 years for special access. we had a commission here that's responsible for oversight of the six of the economy, all these important questions i talked about before they go to the core of where we live and how we work and how many jobs are going to be displaced in this new digital age. we ought to be having a white house conference or some kind of a blue ribbon conference on the future of the internet area and part and parcel of that, and this gets me into terrain i feel passionately about is what's the future of

misinformation in the internet? what's the future of journalism? what's the future of the jobs you got? is this going to be the town square of our democracy, paid with mortar into bricks? how are we going to get real news and information? is it fate, is real, all this sort of stuff. it's a travesty. it's not what self-government needs in order to not just drive but to survive and this election, we've been through the ultimate commercialized reality show involving celebrities off the island. it had nothing to do with the problems of democracy, nothing to do with the real problems this country faces and there's serious problems that could drag the country down, already is dragging it down. we need to get serious. >> are you saying the government should be the arbiter of what is state news?

>> i'm seeing we as a society have to come up with some model that brings back a lot of the investigative journalism we have lost over the last 20 years. we've lost maybe half of our newsroom employees. we lost the dive journalism. we've got reporters now, here's your job for the day. cover these 10 things, come back and write everything in the computer, get a cute headline and see if it gets. >> .go out and do something else if it doesn't. what happened to those days withthe muckrakers when they told them standard baker ? take a year, find out what's going on in the telecom industry or the meatpacking industry. and then do it. they go off for a year, come back and write a 50,000 word article and people would read that. we're not informing ourselves. how did this last campaign inform us? >> those were the days when getting criticism for contributing to the spread of things. >> there making a lot of money off the news, all these aggregators and what are they putting back into journalism? google or all these people. we need investigative reporters are expensive but

it is appalling good. it's a public necessity. you go back to james madison and thomas jefferson and all of those folks realize this was the crying need of society, that's why they roads and subsidize the distribution of newspapers and all of that because they knew this experiment of theirs which nobody knew would succeed or not in self-government depended on the people having news and information. to me, for the last few years i've sat and i'm quoting somebody else, i forget who, our democratic dialogue has been dumbed down. i'm not worried about it. >> hears our democratic sitting dialogue. >> i think the area you talk about in more robust newsrooms is the era before the broadcast and tv radio crossownership. you see the big decline in newspapers in part because of the national market

aggression but now you're required to maintain or fun to newsrooms, tv or radio newsrooms and a newspaper newsroom. at this point i think the marketplace is has bypassed that but in 1975 you start to see the decline here especially in the last 15 years of the newspapers, that maybe something for the fcc to revisit but the market has probably passed it by. >> the marketplace for news and information is not there on the internet. it's not that we've lost half of our newsroom staff in traditional media of newspapers and tv and radio that all went over to the internet because they haven't. you've lost maybe 100,000. and then on the internet, you got 5000 jobs associated with local news. >> real question, there's a new study that came out recently that says by 7 to 1, local viewers still trust their local broadcasters for serving the news up pretty straight versus let's say cable tv where there's a slant or a lot of opinion or

whatever your favorite website it. so that's something to be mindful of, i hope the next fcc will understand the public interest benefit. >> it might be better but that doesn't mean it's good. >> we see the president expressed concerns about media bias and the potential for cable news channels or others to disadvantage conservative voices. do you worry that you would use the fcc to, if you want to use the fcc as a tool to go after media? >> i don't think so. i was encouraged when he came out and talked about the at&t time warner merger and said this is too much power in the hands of two few people. i hope he does follow through on that but because we have been through a campaign that was so bereft in specifics, we don't know what the steps

are that he wish to take with regard to media. he had presidents before who certainly try to interfere with licensing and other things with the fcc and i hope you are beyond that but i don't know. it's all one big mess. >> friendly does outline how the fcc in the lb j in ministration or the truman in ministration where they government has tried to interfere with little speech over the airwaves. i haven't been able to figure out how cnn being bought by at&t either changes the editorial content in any way whatsoever, leaving it in the current hands if you are on that unhappy versus letting it change, i think that deal goes through, it's a vertical deal. 100 years of antitrust or's are prudent with vertical deals, buying suppliers rather than competitors. it should go through so i think the deal will go through. mike and i were talking the green room about, we hope there won't be any interference the fcc of editorial discretion. that would probably unify both republicans and

democrats i think. >> the classic definition of monopoly, we go back to the robber barons democracy and all these people. it meant content and product and distribution and that's what this merger is all about, bringing content , product into the hands of the distributor and possibly freezing out a lot of independent voices that would otherwise be heard but can't cope with that kind of power. a mass into one entity when it at&t or comcast or whoever it is. >> commissioner mcdowell, commissioner michael copps, january 21 of next year, when it rolls around, who's going to be on the commission? who gets to have a voice and what will be some of the items that the trumpet ministration, the fcc will have to tackle?

>> we don't know. the prediction business has been bruised here recently. >> will chairman wheeler be gone? he doesn't have to be.>> you will have to asking that question. so people understand, the president designate who the chair is but can't fire you from the commission altogether. either by impeachment or the senate, nobody ever has from the fcc so in theory, chairman wheeler could stay on as a regular commissioner considering the president elevates a michael riley to be acting chair if not permanent chair but we don't know that for sure. traditionally, when you change parties, chairs step down and that is the assumption that that's what will happen with tom wheeler but we don't know for sure. >> there are several issues and policy areas that republicans have been looking to address but perhaps because of the democratic control of the fcc, they haven't been able to and now is their opportunity. >> newspaperbroadcast , crossownership, all of these ownership rules, i don't

know. i wouldn't say they are going to be so i will try to deal net neutrality, i don't know how to judge without getting very red in the face and the judge says why are you here and he says, remember those old rules you didn't like and we didn't like either? we want to bring those and get rid of the new rules you approve. i mean, why did donald trump get involved in that fight, why does anybody want to get involved in that fight? that's history and we should be getting onto some of these other issues in the method i talked about earlier. >> supreme court on the fox case said they couldchange your mind on rules such as indecency issues. there's a relatively, he and i were both involved in indecency rules and that appeal so certainly the appellate court understands and wants to change its mind . >> it's every other year. >> they didn't that, it could

be every other year provided there's a rational basis that explains itself but nonetheless, we don't know for sure. what the agenda will be. but i do think there's things before the commission could have bipartisan appeal and that is first of all, they voted earlier this year on what they call the spectrum frontiers proposal which is finding new frequencies, new bands of the airwaves to bring to market to play into the hands of consumers as we moved to the internet of things which will require more spectrum. >> spectrum tends to be a place where republicans and democrats can come together as well it's also very necessary. also they could do things to help incentivize and build infrastructure to help support our new economy. >> my hope would be that they support what's best for consumers rather than choosing among constituencies and trying to sell playing field in favor of different industries, one after another so it's make sure it's a fair playing field and the fair market.

there's so much you can do on a bipartisan basis to help the internet of things. >> this infrastructure that rob mentioned is so important and both candidates for president endorsed it and i'm hopeful broadband will be very much a part of the infrastructure bill . i hope the fcc will do its part if they are serious about a national mission of getting broadband to everybody and i heard a story at a tv station in pittsburgh that 800,000 people in pennsylvania don't have any access to broadband.that's got to be an administration line. i hope the fcc will do us part conducive universal service but other agencies need to be involved. there's a mission for the 21st century, the first 15 years of the 21st century. let's get this country up to speed and some would say we are already up to speed but certainly in the international competition, is not all that impressive and not what should be for the

country that invented the internet in the firstplace. >> commissioner copps, in january 2009 you became a majority member of the commission , much as g pi and michael wiley know, how did your life change? >> i became chairman so my life changed and i became responsible for a lot of other things other than that. i think it it changed because you are responsible for setting the agenda and what items are going to be important. i felt a deep responsibility to improve the relationship to chairman and commissioners because i watched several commissioners come in and basically low therelationship , not just with members of the other party but with members of their ownparty . we can do better than that and we do, thanks to cooperation of rob and jonathan and that's why we made some progress and we really need to get back to that. we need to do something about

the closed meeting room, getting the commissioners together and really looking at this as an independent agency and you know, people complain about the president says one thing the fcc should do, here's congress say you got three or four letters on the last day telling us what to do. and we are an independent agency. >> mcdowell, how did your life change going from the majority to the minority. >> i got one vote shy so it wasn't a good time. so all the votes before were 3 to 0. mike deserves a lot of credit and jonathan edelstein as well, the other democratic mission or at the time because as you can see from our dialogue, we disagree probably a lot area a, we share a personal relationship as with jonathan as well and we all three believe in the process of making it transparent.

we're also very focused on the digital tv transition. at the beginning, that was the biggest thing the fcc had ever undertaken to affect tens of millions of consumers across the country in all 50 stat and it was absolutely necessary as we tried to auction off pieces of those airwaves for mobile broadband use. so that was, that collaborative atmosphere was something mike and i, jonathan, we all made a point of making sure that the commission staff who were very instrental in building out across the country to help educate consumers on what they needed to do to adjust the tv transition. that was a great moment for them, i think morale improved as a resultbut we did have the advantage of being focused by the very big project that was hugely bipartisan piece of legislation coming out of congress . and that helped make it more bipartisan . >> looking at the kinds of companies and histories that

have been making overtures to the trump transition staff in recent days, there are a lot of organizations that clearly would benefit from a trump administration but depending on how that and ministration shapes up, certainly it seems as though certain groups can benefit over others. in your view, which groups and industries tend to benefit the most? >> in a fcc world, there's no way to tell. you have a lot of constituencies that battle against each other, let's say cable versus broadcasters or wireless versus broadcasters or cable. there are a lot of industry groups that are regulated by the fcc and certainly the providers have been increasingly in the mix with fcc policy as net neutrality gets rolled back, that would be a defeat or the extra bites. >> what are the rules of the

road? everyone will benefit from what are the rules of the road? the markets have soared since trump election in part because the general broad strokes of policy we think we know, lower taxation, less regulation and that can be good for everybody. we have a growing economy so markets are predicted. wall street is betting on future growth of the american economy. if we increase the philosophy of money flowing through the economy and real growth rather than 1 and a half percent to two percent growth that we've seen that's been the weakest recovery since world war ii, if we can increase that at all , all those companies, whether it's operators are broadcasters or mom-and-pop manufacturers or retailers, they're all going to benefit if the eye is allowed to rise so i haven't seen any clues of one constituency or one type of group being favored over another, not yet. >> you can look at the

history of the communications industry over the last 20 years and not conclude that big media and big telecommunications benefited enormously. look what just happened to the number of con buddies, look what happened to consolidation, the homogenization of programming, look what happened to the democratic dialogue, the civic dialogue. this isn't just under republican administrations and republican commissions, it's been under democratic commissions to. that has left so many of these and changed the marketplace to the point where very few companies control i think it's just a handful of companies that are now responsible for 75 percent of the pages on the internet. that's not an open, vibrant, innovative internet i thought we weregoing to get for the country deserves to have . >> how does the election shift the way historians may

view the wheeler chairmanship? >> that's an interesting question. how did the election change the wayhistorians will look at the obama presidency. what's going to happen to obamacare, the many initiatives that he did . what happens going forward and i think the same happens here. the decision chairman wheeler took in the majority, on net neutrality was historic. i think by itself, standing there, if it perseveres it will go down in history is one of the biggest decisions the commission ever made but if perchance it would be sidelined for eliminated and we go back to the kind of consolidated programs we had before, then it will just be kind of a footnote in history. this changed for a while but then there was others. >> not the way up government is supposed to work. one gets rid of the what the

other one did, it's not ping-pong or back and forth. it's getting things settled and trying to anticipate the issues of the future and do something that benefits the public interest.it's a term which appears 113 times in the communications act. >> robert dowell, if you are the incoming chair would you dismantle net neutrality and how would you go about it if you did? >> first of all, i think title ii broadband internet access, i argued against that many times as a commissioner. that was an administration policy so that is unanimous bipartisan consensus at that time. really, into the depression administration and something happened around 2008 when it became more democratic party orthodoxy to have a net neutrality regulation and specifically, ultimately title ii or this telecommunications or old-style telephone regulation, the internet which is a completely different animal so that's why a couple years ago, referring to the senate in particular was looking at compromise legislation to say

what can we do to protect innovation and investment on the edge but also in the core and the network operators? what we are seeing is a lot of convergence, there's a lot of over-the-top players that have thousands of miles of fiber and routers and servers over the country, making ones and zeros to consumers. the same can be said of at&t are comcast or verizon, etc. so as consumers demand conversions and as the market is pushing that convergence, meeting different businesses are getting into different business lines, it's harder to draw, harder for government to draw those lines of distinction so this is becoming now problematic. maybe you need a new look. maybe congress needs to legislate a new and i think is where congress was, in the congress community two years ago so now is a terrific opportunity to do just that where you can have a win-win situation, you can stop having different business groups at each other's throats and you can have enshrined in law, in a statute, rules of the road that makes sense for everybody, most importantly

the american consumer and you don't have to worry about this every two, four, eight years of some regulatory win. the obama fcc throughout a lot of the bush fcc rules so we can go back and forth each time white house changes hands. in terms of what happens at the administrative agencies, not just the fcc but fda, etc. it happens all the time. i think this is the moment, these next few months, especially 2017, this is the moment if you're going to repeal title ii, what do you do to bring certainty? each side has an incentive to go to the table because they know the rules could change every four years. let's all agree and move on. >> i think what jumpstarted this debate was not democrats pushing for something which started this debate was 2002 and 2005 when the republican commission said over the internet? that doesn't help. >> it's not going to be regulated.

>> you voted for a cable modem. >> i dissented as vigorously as i possibly could, that was under 2002 under the chairmanship. >> that was in 2005 and it was different because the courts ... [overlapping conversation] >> i tell you why that vote occurred in 2005, because the court had spoken. herman melton and others on the commission wanted to, it was really in doubt on that vote what was going to happen to universal service, was going to happen to emergency communications, what wasgoing to happen to disabled americans and i worked , the court having spoken it look like we had lost to make sure some of that stuff was in there and in 2005, we got the statement of principles. >> you're entitled to access the content of your choice read the applications of your choice, the devices of your choice. >> so that's what happened there but this was the seminal mistake of the 2000.

was to categorize that and i wondered what happened in 2000. go back and look at my statement, what's going to happen as a result of this reclassification. >> one more question on the future of the federal agencies writ large. the ninth circuit issued a decision recently governing the next federal trade commission's exemption which effectively, some people said effectively gets many companies out of being regulated entirely based on whether or not they have any assets that can be considered telecommunications assets. in the trump administration, since the fcc dropped its attempt to gather a hearing on this, the federal trade

commission dropped an attempt to get on the hearing on that. >> we don't know. not to take away from the program, we don't know what's going happen but that was a good case, a good illustration of unintended consequences so one of the things i warned against when i was a commissioner is if you classify broadband access and take away jurisdiction that the consumer protection and antitrust jurisdiction of the federal trade commission under something called the carrier exemption and you're saying that broadband providers are now common carriers just like the phone company for making 34 and so therefore the power of the fcc which is an enforcement agency connects swiftly with this enforcement is now taken away so this now starts to cross wires, no pun intended in terms of who's in charge of what. it's now spillover privacy, causing consumer confusion with different standards by the fcc versus the federal trade commission. so that's part of the morass, the confusion, vanessa why the title reclassification but what can you do to remove

that confusion while still protecting entrepreneurs, at the edge as well as network operators and that i think is the gold opportunity congress has. >> what do we know about the people advising donald trump on technology and communications? >> jeff eyes knock has been in advising him on fcc issues. he's a friend of mine so i know him well. he tends to be libertarian in his outlook, he was on your program a month or ago. and so we can probably roll some tape as to what he said then but transition are interesting. i worked on the outside helping him formally to advise the book transition and come january 21, he'll appoint a lot of the paperwork done with briefing papers and personal recommendations are then kind of forgotten because not to diminish their work but you get to the interim chairs and the white house personnel office and you actually get

an official policy apparatus and official personnel apparatus and that becomes the focus of people's attention and sometimes newfound affection, people's new best friendsthey made in washington so there will be a lot of attention over the next 6100 days on the transition team and booth, january 21 is going to be focused on them .>> i think it's here today, gone tomorrow. it may change between now and the time this program airs. i want to add one thought because i know rob puts a lot of faith in the fcc and its enforcement ability but let's always remember that the fcc procedures are usually ex post facto. there on an individual case, it's not setting the rules of the field ahead of time so that people can really understand them and i can say there's a different standard but i like the fcc standard and fcc did not have that. >> this court ruling for the ninth circuit, does it ensure congress does not act? >> i think consumers have every opportunity to be heard

depending on how this plays out . if that communications exemption would be changed or if the fcc would take itself out of the business of doing the regulatory oversight it does and the fcc doesn't do a smashing follow-up then consumers will be hurt. >> i'm not saying we have the perfect arrangement and can there be changes between the fcc, yes there can but to me it's not either/or. it's each takes an action. >> it's either going to be fcc for internet access or ftc. you can have to agencies so it's one of the other. the ftc is older agency would work great for the entire rest of the economy. if you think about every other part of the tech sector, the lumber, all the rest, the consumer protection

bureau, federal trade commission does a terrific job for the entire rest of the united states economy so have faith in that. >> final question, what worries you the most, what are you most excited about? >> what worries me me the most is we are going to roll back a lot of the historic decisions that have been made and on par with that, we're just going to continue down the same road in politics as usual without realizing the enormous challenges we had on some of the things we talked about earlier in the future of the internet, news and journalism and a democratic society and all the rest. we cannot allow those problems to just hang out there and just stay in occasional bouts of them and just do business as usual, business as usual will not do for business in the 21st century and certainly not for the american people in the 21st century. >> i think we are due for a robust economic expansion if indeed we can reform the tax code so that american tax rates are the highest in the world and we can see the repatriation of hundreds of

billions of dollars from overseas to come back here, that will be either invested at or paid out dividends, either way it helps people with 401(k)s and everyone in the economy to help grow the economy so if that can be done, for starters i think that's probably what wall street has been reacting to for the past week is you will start to see the inflow of capital in a country like we haven't seen before. if we can get reform of the financial services sector, not just consumers but it doesn't drive capital offshore which it has for the past five years, bring it back on shore to america, that will be good but that's going to drive accreditation and investments through all sectors but the tech sector, it just came back from a bay area just last night so it's fresh in my mind but this is the crown jewel of the american economy and i think it's ready for a whole other renaissance. we are right in front of this progress and there's a lot going on right there. america is leading the way and i think we have some wonderful bold days ahead of us.

>> robert mcdowell, michael copps, former sec commissioners and brian fung, current technology reporter for the washington post, thank you. >> thank you join us later today for another event looking ahead to the presidentialtransition , the council on foreign relations host a program that features several former white house piece of staff, live at 6:30 eastern on our companion network c-span and the executive branch is not the only one welcoming new officials. you leave elected representatives making their way to washington for the start of the 115th congress. , put up with one of those members recently. >> we are with val deming's of the 10th district, former orlando police department chief. how did that job prepare you for this job as a member of congress?

>> i served in a 27 year law enforcement officer and had the honor of serving as chief of police and i have dealt with people in just about every facet of their lives. i see the result of good government and the result of bad government so i am excited about this opportunity to serve them and to this very special but different way what are your priorities now that you are a member of congress? >> i'm sure it comes as no surprise that our national security, even down to our neighborhood security is the top priority for me. it has really been the foundation on which the american dream that we love to talk about is founded on. police community relations, criminal justice reform are top priorities. to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of people who should not happen because it has nothing to do with the second amendment but it has to do with people who are mentally ill, criminals, domesticabusers and terrorists , taking care of education. education is the key to success in our country and

making sure every child regardless of there's a code has access to quality education, protection of men and women who protect us, our veterans as well as protecting our seniors and making sure they can retire with dignity and respect. >> on that transition you brought up, how do you think the orlando shooting, the worst mass shooting in us history. how do you think that impacted the debate in this country on guns? >> when i was appointed chief, crime was an all-time high. but also, the reduction, crime guns from our street was my second priority. we looked at a lot of the homicide that occurred, most of them committed with firearms. >>

we do seem to work hard to keep that momentum up. you wanted to make a priority. what advice would you give to this new administration if you could talk to the president-elect about dealing with that issue that has become such authority is due in recent years. there's no doubt that the majority of the men and women who serve us to a well they would risk their lives for strangers. they do it every day. we've have some issues that need to be addressed.

as we talk about that. let's introduce sensitivity training as well. it would be better equipped to police the community. have you thought about what communities you want to survive. what i do know that the protection and the safety of our nation is a top concern of mine as well as making sure that we keep america moving in orlando we had 66 million people who visit central florida every year. transportation is certainly a deep concern for me. thank you so much for your time. see mike tonight on the communicators.

robert mcdowell and michael copps. and the interest of that. to make it for smart as a country will start to tackle those with the future of the internet going beyond. what does it mean with artificial intelligence. what is it mean for jobs. i sense that what plans they teed up and also that item is knocking to get off the ground. watch the communicators. >> here are some of our featured programs thursday is giving day. just after 11:00 a.m. eastern on american values. the founding fathers and the

purpose of government. >> there is a huge civic mindedness but is not compelled by the government. unhealthy food in the rise of childhood obesity in the u.s. >> for everything from monster burgers with 1400 calories. feeding an epidemic. of childhood obesity. then at 330. they talk about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and the challenge of providing global access to information. they talk about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and the challenge of providing global access to information. i know there's a small community there. there are five to ten really active users. an inside look at the years long effort to repair and restore the capitol dome.

justice elena kagan reflects on her life and her career. it was a great thing to have done. it taught me an incredible amount. but it also taught me what it was like to be a serious historian. i realized it wasn't just for me. they are not putting a 2-dollar idea in a $20 sentence. it's a putting a 20-dollar idea. without any loss of meaning. in an exclusive ceremony president obama will presented the medal of freedom. singer bruce springsteen. watch on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free radio app.

and now a discussion on the movement of marijuana across the nation. this is about 45 minutes.n >> joining us now is the box the cofounder of the national cannabis industries association and also a lawyer here in washington dc that deals with issues when itsues w comes to marijuana. what did they decide about this idea of how marijuana ist used right creation only or medically. >> it was pretty big election. we had nine initiatives on the ballot five of them were for all adult use and former related to medical marijuana. eight out of nine ended up passing including four out of five of the adult use measures. with the initiatives passing in california.

north dakota and montana spend it upon existing program.ho what do you think there's a change in them. >> this has been evolving for decades starting with the first medical marijuana initiative in the past. we have just seen a support for reforming marijuana laws in the increase. just about one or two points per year. the most recent gallup surveys. i think it is based on the fact that people understand that marijuana isn't as bad as it was made out to be. i'm not saying it without some

harms but overall given the grand scope of various substances is not worth punishing individuals.t the chs >> now that there made at the statewide level how much influence does it have over the statewide decisions? >> there is significant federal involvement. and what we've have over the o past three years officially there had been education of the viewers.n thos in response the issued guidance in august.dance basically said if you are acting in compliance with state laws you will not be a federal law enforcement

priority that allows individuals in the states as well as a medical marijuana state to understand. state that they would move forward.pet it is a largest question then. largest it was whether the guidance will continue. on whether it will be there onui paper same to operators that you have fewer acting in compliance with state law that you will not be a federal law enforcement priority. >> we will continue on with the conversation. give not only what's happening on the statewide level but what it means for the incoming administration you can call and give our guests questions or comments on this.

what is his stance if any. if you were to look up there record you will see that he's have some pretty strong intake marijuana statements in the past. it doesn't seem much in favor of the use of marijuana. and we will see where that goes.hould states would be able to determine their own laws. we will see where it comes on.at he it's what he could do. when you come right down to it despite all of this actions at the state level where we now had 28 states plus the district of columbia that have

made the medical use legal.. along with the now eight states plus the district of columbia. marijuana is still illegal at the federal level that is not changed.d. the department of justice has the ability to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana -related activity we are hoping that they don't. it's possible and therefore when you ask anything is onta the table. the question is whether the state laws will be respected. the federal government can shut it down. yes they could. do you think donald trump is interested in doing that. he said he isn't. he said it's a states issue when asked specifically by a reporter in colorado. whether he would allow the attorney general to go after