that case is working quickly through the judicial process. this month, this month we expect to hear whether or not the u.s. supreme court will take up our case. the national governors association, the tax foundation, the national retail federation, the american farm bureau federation, have all joined south dakota and 35 other states in urging the united states supreme court to take up the case. we can't know how they may rule, but we can be proud that south dakota has been a leader in addressing this national issue of tax uniformity. let's hope, for the sake of south dakota businesses, that the problem will finally be resolved. as we continue to our efforts to address online sales, we're also encouraging more business and more opportunity for our state. let me tell you about just a few of the many good things happening in south dakota. last july we broke ground on the long baseline nutren know

facility at sanford underground research facility. this experiment -- >> watch governor daugaard's state of the state address with many on line. we're looking at a meeting for free trade and benefits of u.s. economy. this panel looking at free trade and the internet, just getting underway here live on c-span2. >> first off with any project of this side could not taken place without support of an incredible team from the school from georgetown, from the mccourt school of public policy and faculty and student coordinators so trade i think we can all agree has become a very important issue with respect to sort of the american political conversation, and global conversation. so, i think it is fitting that the mccourt school of public policy at georgetown's premier

sort of faculty with public policy would try to take on this conversation and put ourselves in the discussion taking place both domestically and internationally how trade can continue to play an important role it has throughout sort of america's just, sort of economic history, its political history, what that means moving forward under the current administration and future ones. so i think a really good place to start that conversation is with the digital industry. i can't really emphasize enough, i think we all agree how important it is. this conversation would not taken place and i can send out live tweet updates to inform people we're still on. it is integral part of our lives. we understand that it is also a integral part of our modern economy and rapidly growing one. it is one we haven't scoped out space on in terms of regulations and specifically how the exchange of goods happens across borders. the u.s. is the leading player on that. it is easy to sy that the united states is just the world leader

in terms of digital space. silicon valley i think what we associate most prominently with that sector and it is only fitting that the u.s. should continue a role in that as it engages in trade relationships moving forward. this panel could not take place without the generous support of harvard board of technology and who we partner and their chief editor to be moderates. i will leave the moderator to introduce the speakers who i think are tremendous group of people who have the expertise it summarize this issue. but i just want to say thank you again for coming. i'm looking forward to the conversation we have today. no that leaves it to us. so welcome to panel on trade an internet of digital trade. i'm daniel yadvich, editor of harvard journal of modern technology. i'm honored to moderator of this panel that almost wasn't. i will quickly set the stage before we get started and i

introduce the panelists who are people you actually want it hear from but we're not only talking about this because of its sheer commercial impact which michael hinted to, i think is evident to everyone who even pretends to watch the stock market these days. it is also about, it is about data. it is about its importance to cross-border trade and it is about ip and it is about privacy. so, i will throw a quick statistic at you and then i promise i won't pretend to know that much more. between 2005 and 2014, cross-border data flows increased by almost 50 times. that means this is brand new, exciting, kind of terrifying problem for us. so those cross-border data flows are generating more than $3 trillion a year in economic revenue. which is a staggering number. that is not to say it is all rainbows and butterflies. these opportunities come with a

lot of risks. that is some of the stuff we tee up for you today. let me introduce our fantastic panelists. i will start right here. damion has the european trade delegation here in d.c. before coming to washington he was member a trade commissioner from 2009 to 2012. he headed usa and canada team at european commission where he contributed to eu trade policy agenda with the americas, particularly the launch of transatlantic trade an investment partnership. he was deputy chief negotiator on that agreement. we'll go next to ken, who is the director of global trade policy at bsa, the software alliance. the leading organization advocating for the global software industry. related to international trade, data flows, privacy and security issues and aboard. before that ken served as legal counselor to the u.s. mission to the european union in brussels. he led u.s. government engagement on privacy an policy and digital regulations and

advised on trade negotiations with the eu. finally we have the globe lead of tin national policy at facebook. he served assistant u.s. trade representative and global property in the office p he was responsible for overseeing u.s. trade policy in innovation and ip and served as trade negotiator for the tpp. pretty fantastic group. i give them a few minutes to tee up issues they think is important. pitfalls an in these trade agreements. we'll dig a little bit deeper. why don't i start at the end with probir. right at the bottom. great. >> well thanks, very much and thanks for that very kind introduction, daniel. really great to be here this

morning and glad that despite the potential for a shutdown we have a great audience. so, as daniel said i lead on global trade issues for facebook. relatively new in this job but i think what's great for me is the opportunity to continue to work on issues that i really believe passionately in. that is really about the ability for trade to change people's lives and create new economic opportunity. that is why i think on the, in internet sector it is just such an important area to get the rules right. virtually the entire trading system are built on rules that were developed in the early 1990s before the internet, before everything that we sort

of know and come to love. before twitter, before facebook. before streaming services. so really this is a great opportunity so get the rules right. i think we'll talk about that today but, i think for facebook, we're part of a larger ecosystem and part of a larger internet sector. to give you some more statistics about the importance of the internet sector, why it is so important to get the rules right, you know, the internet sector is responsible for 6% of u.s. gdp. three million u.s. jobs are dependent on the internet sector. 59% of our u.s. services exports are related to the internet sector. i think it is really critical, because of value and importance to the u.s. economy that, as we're undertaking all these negotiations, that, that negotiators look to the internet sector to try to find the right solutions. and you know, i think it is also important, to know that the internet is not just about

internet companies or start-ups. the benefits different fuse throughout the entire u.s. economy. the real beneficiaries of internet heavy enabled trade and related issues are actually traditional sectors. manufacturing, financial services, agriculture. 75% of the internet's benefits go it those sectors. so i think with the right internet provisions and trade agreements we can get the rules right but we can also prevent other countries from blocking u.s. companies, from favoring their own industries and, frankly, stopping the type of innovation we're so used to here in the united states. so i think today we'll talk a lot about some of the ways that we think that, that the right ways to modernize existing trade agreements like nafta and wto. look forward to the discussion, thanks.

>> thank you. thank you all for coming this morning. as daniel mentioned i lead on trade issues for bsa, the software alliance. it is an industry association that represents the software industry globally both very large companies and smaller entrepreneurial companies. these are companies that are, have made services like cloud computing service, artificial intelligence, data analysis central to their business plans. and. all of those services have one thing in common. they require the ant for data to move in unrestricted ways around

the globe. much larger qualities that have not been transported previously. and the challenge now is to create a, a set of international trading rules that accommodate, promote and protect that sort of activity. this is, this is a dramatically new area of the economy. as daniel mentioned. it is an area in which american companies currently lead. the amount spent for example, on public cloud services in the united states is well beyond other countries. but it is growing, perhaps even more quickly in other parts of the world. so there is now a realization around the world that there is a need for, for these sorts of rules. in some ways it's a moment that

is like the 1980s when similar realization about intellectual property took root. that this was a foundation of economic activity and that there was a need for global conventions. and so we then saw a series of, of conventions, negotiated at the u.n. level, but also rules negotiated through free-trade agreements. we're just at the beginning of that process, with, with data rules. there was a very ambitious effort that was mounted in, in the tpp negotiation, the trans-pacific partnership, that probir worked on and i worked on some extent within the u.s. government. and that resulted in the first sort of comprehensive set of

protections for, for data. the start of united states in that agreement is of course well-known but perhaps less well-known is that those rules have survived intact among the 11 other countries that signed the tpp agreement, and are expected to come into force in the next years. that doesn't mean the united states government has given up on this agenda. quite the contrary, in the negotiations to modernize the north american protrade agreement there is is a trade chapter that is under negotiation that in many ways builds upon the work that was ton in tpp because, even in the years since the tpp negotiation began there have been dramatic

revolutions in technology and the need to, to accommodate that through, through rules. the, the trade picture is complex at the moment. multilateral negotiations are in various states. the, the ttip negotiation, the transatlantic trade investment partnership, that both damien and i worked on is in a state of suspension. negotiations on a multilateral agreement that would address trade and services rules is likewise not progressing at the moment. but there are other initiatives that are proceeding regionally including nafta and, and there i think is the prospect for bilateral agreements, not only involving the united states but other countries such as japan

picking up on the same principles, relating them in their own practice. what i think we're headed for i think is a more complex international law architecture than, then what we say for example in the ip world. that will present challenges for companies. but what the companies need most of all is predictable, interoperable rules that enable them to conduct these data services and bring them to the benefit of consumers and companies around the world. i will stop there, thank you. >> thank you, good morning. congratulations to the georgetown university school of public service of public policy for organizing this event and i was very glad we're not a victim of the shutdown. can probably remember

october 2013 when we were supposed to host the second round of the ttp negotiations in brussels. we had to postpone. so, gee, going to be the second time the shutdown accepts my professional life but no, it won't. so congratulations to that. i thank you for inviting european diplomats here in the room to present the views of the european union which are very different and very similar. it will be very interesting to that conversation today. you may not know this, this is the number one of exporter of commercial services. we are the number one trading partner of 80 countries in the world and we have a very amish about schuss trade agenda. if you go back. if you go back to the founding document of this government and european commission we adopted a commission called trade for all. that trade needs to be available for everybody and based on our

values but also be adapted it changes and in the modern economy. there is a whole section on e-commerce and data flows. there is realization of all companies in all sectors, including agricultural, industrial products and i.t. we talk about later need to rely more and more on the flow of data, personal data and non-personal data, and the distinction is important from our perspective. so we embarked on an ambitious agenda. it was already pretty ambitious. the european union has, in its dna to be multilateralists. therefore we are staunch defender of the world trade organization. not for the sake of it. it is not a matter of ideology but a matter of interests and also a matter of view of the world. we view we trade with all the countries of the world but the

best in terms of regulations is to have rules at global level. i'm sure we all agree on that. it would be fantastic if we had a e-commerce chapter in the gatt or but -- i'm sure will have some discussions on copyright issues. so, and we remain attached to a rules-based trading, global trading system. it is very important and what it means also that not only you knee rules, modern rules, ideally agree at multilateral level, otherwise we try bilateral, agreements we talk about that but also need enforce mechanisms. the rule does not have any value if you can not enforce your right. absolutely no value. otherwise you go back to situations where it is the law of the stronger and we believe very much in soft power, which is the power of the rule of law.

then, when you look at our trade agreements, if you go back to our agreement, go back to the agreement of 2006, it has very little on e-commerce, very, very little. then you have see a little bit more. japan we concluded very recently has provisions on the non-obligation, you can not oblige companies to give the source code much. i was reading this morning a story in china when even the videogames, you have to give your source code to the government and, the cyber law. which seems excessive. i'm also reading if you make refrigerators and offer recipes for your customers based on what is in the fridge, because the fridge might be intelligent enough to identify what is in the fridge, that also you need to provide source code which doesn't seem to be making much sense it me. if you look at provisions of the

huge -- even later one which we're proposing the eu-mexico 2.2 negotiations you may not know this, but we decided in 2015 to launch renegotiation of our existing ft with mexico. all of our negotiations on line, we do the negotiations in transparent manner. you can see what we're looking for in eu mexico, eu-chile and renegotiation of our fta with chile, and indonesia. we have agreements with more than 10 countries as you know. i would say we're very ambitious on all these areas and can only invite you to have a look at these provisions and see to what extent you think they are adapted to the modern world. thank you. >> thank you, guys. that is a fantastic way to tee up some of the interesting issues here and one of the big

running threads is about data. it is about a few things that i think would be interesting to scope out for the audience. so when we worry about trade agreements and data provisions we worry about kind of a few things. one is increasing trend around the world towards data localization provisions, for those not always engaged in the space, refer to the idea that a country would require you to hold data about your users within that country. they can also be paired with cross-border data regulation or bands, you can not take the data from home country users and export it somewhere else. sometimes that is done explicitly. sometimes it is done through provisions that make it practically impossible to do so. i would love to start off there and get a sense from each of you about what you think the risks are from that, what the benefits are and what the trend line is for a lot of these agreements going forward, to how to get

around them or stop them or scope them so that they're the most interesting and useful? whoever wants to kick us off. >> yeah. i'll start on that. first on the trend there are definitely and unfortunately is a trend towards localization measures and sometimes outright bans on the export of data. we see this around the world in countries as diverse as china, russia, brazil, indonesia, vietnam. it, it is something that affects not just the software industry but a whole range of other industries. manufacturers for example, that

now have software embedded in their products. the example of aircraft engines that are constantly transmitting data about how they are performing back to, back to boeing. so, the importance of these sorts of data flows is, is crosscutting. the problem with localization measures is that they, they reduce the efficiency of services. they can require obviously companies to create local facilities to store data. increases costs. also can be less secure in many ways. and it is fundamentally antithetical to the business model that has developed in this

area. trade agreements are one clear way to try to address that. some of the agreements that have been mentioned already this morning, the tpp, the nafta, would have strong provisions limiting the ability of governments to restrict data flows, to impose localization requirements. there are of course public policy need in certain circumstances on parts of governments to restrict the data flows. but, the important thing is that those be disciplined, that they not be able to be used in an arbitrary and discriminatory way. >> thanks. so i would, i would largely agree with what ken just said. i think there is for a company like facebook which is

diversifying and is actually building infrastructure facilities, so for example, we just announced a, an unsea cable to deliver internet at faster speeds between virginia and spain. this is something we're clearly investing heavily in. so because we have a lot of experience in, this is area we feel strongly that we're in tpp now, the new successor is agreement to the tpp, the comprehensive and progressive trans-pacific partnership. . .

>> different regions, you can start sort of spinning out a balkanization of the internet which i think defeats the very purpose of its strength and its power and its reach. so from our perspective, i think we think decisions that, on where to store data, where to host data should be made on technical considerations and user needs. and i think that allows hen, you know, opportunities -- then, you know, opportunities to unsure that you are serving your customers, your user, our user base across the world, and it should be based on issues like reliability and security and performance. and i think that, that canning dictate -- that can tick tate different results based on the networks in each country. so from from our perspective, we're very supportive of that. and it's not just for companies like facebook and for many of the companies that ken's organization represents, but also for small start-ups. a company like facebook does

have resources to build these infrastructure facilities, but a small start-up can't possibly comply with all the data localization requirements in every region if that was the way that this was trending. so, again, this is a key plank of what we think is sort of a 21st century digital trade agenda. >> thank you. a couple of points. first of all, we also, as i said initially, we want to favor data flows and -- [inaudible] we've taken a different tack on the relationship between provisional data privacy and trade agreements than the united states and other countries, and so we've decided not to have any provision on data privacy in our trade agreements. and i think it's important to understand why. it's because data privacy is a fundamental right issue in the

european union, and in a way -- and any comparisons, of course, are imperfect. but when i watch your second amendment debate which is a fundamental liberty debate in this country, as european i sometimes really scratching my head in trying to understand the various arguments and in particular the outcome of the conversation. but, you know, it's the third time i've been living here as a student as a lawyer and as a diplomat, so i know a little bit, the cup. but i kind -- the country. but i kind of respect that. from the european perspective, what you need to keep in mind is more than half of the members of the european union were at some point dictatorial regimes, and so the citizens have been surveilled, have been the subject of constant

surveillance, electronic, by your neighbors, friends, family. and there's a very strong desire to protect the privacy of your personal data also coming from that background. going back to regimes before the second world war, the communist regimes or even regimes in mediterranean countries, greece, spain and port ball. so keep that in -- portugal. so keep that in mind when you look at europe. keep in mind that it's a constitutional law debate whether or not certain rights are protected and without the limits of those rights and without the limits of so, for example, the european commission and looking at the adequacy of the data privacy regime in other countries. if you read the decision of the court of justice, keep in mind that the court of justice is coming from that perspective with a, an on thive to protect

the rights of the -- objective to protect the rights of the citizens. and, therefore, the consequences that it's not acceptable for a trade agreement to limit those fundamental rights and to limit also the possibility for the institutions including the court to develop that further the regime, if you want, of data privacy rules. that being said is, if i finish that being said, the commission recently proposed a legislative proposal onion-personal data, the free flow of non-personal data within the european union. it's a proposal of last september. we found out there are a lot of restrictions imposed by governments on where you keep data. for example, in sweden all accounting data needs to be localizedded in sweden. that's the type of provision that doesn't really make much sense. so there's -- and so we see very much the value of insuring the free flow of data to making sure

we get better services, stronger, more reliable. and i think the tech industry must fully acknowledge also the challenge that we see in more and more breaches of data. and i think even in this country people feel the data are less secure than five years ago and some polls on that. so i think there's a real challenge on the issue. and i think that the industry must show that keeping the data in one place isn't really making the data safer. obviously, you have another challenge. i'm coming from belgium. you may remember some terrorist attacks, what, two years ago now? and the terrorists were communicating via all kinds of apps, and the data on those communications are not in europe. and so when a prosecutor is investigating a case, to make

sure we can, justice can be done, the prosecutor from belgium is con fronted with the refusals by the companies -- u.s. companies in this case -- sorry, your court order cannot be recognized. you need a warrant. so i think there's a real issue there which need to be greated, and we're working on this -- addressed, and we're working on this. the industry needs to support that exercise. otherwise the trust of the public opinion is at stake. because if more and more of these investigations are blocked, because the data has been transferred and the criminal authorities cannot access it, we have a real issue. i think also public acceptance on all the data that there will be no data localization. i think that the data flows that the data can be localized in other countries, but you need to have a mechanism to make sure that the authorities can have the access they need with all

protection of the companies and the persons concerned. >> yeah. i, i wanted to justin comment on first -- just comment on the first part of your remarks about commercial data flows and privacy. not on the law enforcement access which is the second issue that you touched on which is also an important one. we may want to get into that more. but, i mean, you are, of course, right to emphasize that there is a difference between the united states and europe in the perspective of how data flow provisions and privacy laws should interact. and i certainly don't dismiss the historical experience in europe having lived and worked in germany and also in belgium. it is, it is quite different, the appreciation in some respects from the united states.

but if you completely remove privacy-related questions from the scope of data flows obligations, that is unfortunately potentially a very large loophole that can be exploited. because there are genuinely motivated privacy measures, and then there are measures that are protectionist in nature that are justified on grounds of privacy. and what you need to be able to do is to distinguish the two. and the way you can do that is through enforceable obligations and trade agreements that require that measures be necessary, that they be as narrowly tailored as possible. and so, frankly, this has proven a difficulty in negotiations directly between the united states and the european union. this was a stumbling point in the ttip negotiations.

i understand from the press that it has also proven to be a stumbling point in the negotiations between the e.u. and japan. there are some indications that the position may be evolving at the e.u. level, and that is to be welcomed. it is, it is one of the issues in which there remain some difference between the two sides of the atlantic. >> i think you guys stole a couple of my questions from you as you went back and forth. so thanks for making my job easier. so let's talk about that solution a little bit. in the ttp draft, it was a legitimate public policy reason exception from the free data flow provision. so the idea being data flows are free to cross these borders unless the government in question had a legitimate public policy reason. and carefully scoped and all of

that sound like reasonable limitations, but i want to probe at whether this will do the job. do we think that it still opens a loophole that countries will be able to use, or to we think that whether it's the jurisprudence or the public relations consequences are enough to stop countries who would otherwise be willing to try to game it from actually going ahead and using this as a big loophole. do we think this is really going to close the gap? >> well, it's obviously too soon to know in practice because we don't have these types of obligations in force. but, for example, there is a strong obligation in this respect in the tpp 11 agreement, ctppp, and countries like vietnam that, for example, have

localization requirements will be obliged to change their laws in order to comply with that agreement. we shall have to wait and see if that is something that actually happens. one expects governments to comply with their international obligations, but these are difficult in practice. there are strong commercial interests. >> just to add to, i think, ken's excellent explanation, these rules are drafted in mind with sort of preserving, i mean, legitimate flexibility for governments. but most importantly, providing stability and certainty for all the range of service providers that are going to use these networks. and i think one of the benefits of the tpp language was that it was developed with an eye

towards commonly understood terms from wto jurisprudence, the exceptions language is very closely modeled on exceptions that many countries and governments are used to. so i think, ultimately, what happens is it also shifts the burden, and i think that's important. ultimately, it creates a rule of the road. and like any rule of the road, there'll always be opportunities for abuse. but at least there is a carefully thought out provision. and, again, these rules in tpp, for example, i think one of the benefits of the language was that it was negotiated amongst 12, you know, radically different countries in some ways, you know? you know, countries as small as brunei which is, essentially, 450,000 people to, you know, large economies like the united states and japan. and if you have all of these different traditions at the table and you can arrive at a common rule that i think has a lot of legitimacy and a lot of staying power. >> i have no comment on tpp,

whether it's efficient or not, of course, just two points. one, the european union always supported tpp and c, the ppp -- ctppp. i hate these acronyms. probably one of the reasons the public doesn't like these, because anything that is an acronym is not good. and second point is, indeed, as ken mentioned, the european commission has been looking at this issue of the interplay between the flow of personal data to countries and free trade agreements for over a year now, and they've come to some kind of a solution or a position which will be showered first internally -- shared first internally with the european commissions, member of the union and parliament with the 28 data privacy supervisors or regulators if you want, and then

we'll take it forward. but first we want to have a kind of institutional conversation on this position and then take it forward. but i think the focus so far has been on ad adequacy decisions, on making sure -- and keep in mind that data can flow. all the users of facebook, i'm sure, in europe have signed a contract which applies to standard clause, i suppose, and have been approved by european institutions and data can flow. it's not that the data cannot flow, it's that there are a number of -- [inaudible] for your data to flow legally on -- [inaudible] i suppose, i haven't checked facebook is using or maybe some other provisions. but then you have some other provisions, and i'll save you details, and we're negotiating or discussing adequacy decision

with japan and korea. we already have with nine other countries in the world, and my personal guess is that we'll do more. >> so next i'd like to get your guys' thoughts on kind of the emerging issues someone's already mentioned which is how is the internet of things going to push this in whatever direction? i mean, when we talk about the internet of things, we're talking about devices in your daily life that are connected, generally wi-fi connected or otherwise, that are going to be transmitting all kinds of data about you. it's your washing machine, and it's your refrigerator, and it's the echo dot or google home you probably already have. those devices are going to supposedly increase the amount of data and eventually how personal that data is. do we think that that fits within the paradigms we're already talking about for digital trade? does it require new ways of thinking that are just starting to emerge, or are we already

there in talking about digital trade provisions as far as iot is concerned? does this change our thinking at all? >> well, in some respects i think it's, it can be an easier set of issues. not, not to denigrate it because there are legitimate security issues and others that arise in that area. but remember that the data in general that is generated by devices is not personal data. there may be situations where the data sets are mixed where they have some personal data and then data that is simply non-personal. but for the most part, the issues of privacy that arise in

the context of commercial data flows otherwise are not there. and so we, for example, are looking with interest at this proposed regulation from the commission on the free flow of data which applies to non-personal data as they've described it. there are questions that remain as to what the definitions will be to insure that that's a useful regulation, but the impulse behind it, the direction that it takes is obviously a positive one and one that seeks to address some of these concerns. >> it's too early to tell. it's like some chinese

politician talking about the french revolution 200 years later. it's too early to tell. no, here it's really too early to tell whether the internet of things is changing things. i'm, i would not be asked as ken that the data from a machine is not personal. if i take the fridge, the type of food that is in the fridge can be very personal. very personal. it can reveal religious preferences, some other preferences, and i'm sure you guys can think of many devices that can reveal many preferences that are very personal. and when you cross the data from two or three devices, you actually have a very accurate profile of the person living in that house. so i wouldn't be so certain that personal data would not be produced by these machines. >> the answers i'm getting are it's too soon to tell, that makes me feel like we're at the

cutting edge, so i'll take that as a good sign. so let's move on from data for a second, because we've only got about ten minutes left before we open up for questions from the audience. so let's talk about one of the really hot button issues, which is ip. you know, there's all kinds of patent enforcement questions, copyright enforcement questions, and a lot of the discussion these days seems to be around safe harbors which for the platform, i think, is particularly important and interesting as to, well, do their exist safe harbors for things users do. so i'd like to get at least a cursory sense from you guys about where the ip provisions are headed, what that trendline looks like and what we should be excited about and worried about. >> i might kick this off. [laughter] intellectual property protection enforcement, this is an issue that i've spent probably more than ten years studying, being a

student, still learning but also negotiating. and also seeing the evolution of technology, the evolution of products and services. when with i first started doing this -- when i first started doing this area, the issue was, you know, counterfeit sort of handbags on one end, and then, you know, cds and, you know, pirated cds and marketplaces where you could go and buy, you know, dvds. and i think the world has changed, you know, significantly, you know? for example, on some of the revenues, for example, i think this was reported in the recording try that streaming now is the number one source of revenue. and so if you see the trajectory of how technology is really end abled -- enabled, you know, creativity and innovation, i think it's really important that intellectual property rules are also done right here in this

area. and i think, you know, for facebook i think the, we're a technology platform that, obviously, is, you know, is a platform for users to share and connect around things that they care about, and that often is content and engaging content. and our partners in the media entertainment sectors all generally have facebook pages, and some of the most engaging content comes from them. so it's really important that you have a partnership-based approach. and that's really, i think, where you see the industry heading. you know, one of the things that really is interesting to me is, you know, you have these debates about, you know, if you've just read some of the trade press about one industry against another industry and there are differences between hollywood and silicon valley, but, you know, as i see it, as i see the businesses evolving, you're actually seeing a lot more of a symbiotic win/win relationship. you're seeing large studios

develop their own streaming platforms. you're seeing internet platforms develop funded content win awards at all the award shows. so the world is really, is really becoming one in this area. and i think that's, that's, i think, where we start from what we, what we support intellectual property, and i'm sure we'll have some questions on this. but, basically, the principle is that, you know, the united states has some of the strongest content and innovative industries in the world as well as the strongest technology companies. and that's no surprise. it's because you have very strong copyright and patent laws and trademark laws, but you also have important exceptions and limitations to allow innovation and creativity as well as allow technological change. and i think that's the focus and lens that we take with respect to intellectual property and trade agreements. so we support the u.s. digital

millenium copyright act framework which is also reflected in the e.u.e-commerce directive which provides safe harbors for responsible platforms as long as content, you know, infringing content is taken down but then gives the ability to really develop all of the new platforms that we're seeing but also provides incentives for platforms and rights holders to work together. and that's something that the tpp had. we're also hoping very -- that the nafta will, modernization efforts will also reflect. but then also as we've seen the evolution of technology, we're also seeing the con come by significant importance of limitations and exceptions in u.s. law to copyright. so fair use, which is such an important part of the u.s. ip ecosystem has become even more important to support technological change, to support user-generated content, to

support artificial intelligence and other technological innovations. so it's really important to have that balance right. i think that's another area that we're really hoping along with a variety of other technology companies but also start-ups to make sure that u.s. trade policy really reflects that, that really important balance. but, again, there is from our perspective there's no, it's not a zero sum game. it's ultimately win/win if you can take the entire ecosystem and support that through ip and trade agreements. >> just briefly to highlight one point that was made which is that there is an active discussion in the nafta negotiations about a proposal that apparently the united states has put forward that would create intermediary immunity with respect to non-ip content; that is to say,

noncopyrighted content. and that is based upon u.s. law, section 230 of the communications decency act. typically, this is not reflected in statute in other countries around the world, so there is an interesting debate going on with mexico and canada about this. there is, of course, case law that is emerging from all different judicial systems including in europe. and it is not uniform. so this is an area where we also think there is a strong benefit that could be gained from addressing it in the trade agreement. >> i'll be brief. we do not have a provision like that in our trade agreements. we have provisions on dialogue, a number of issues including liability of internet service providers or some broader

topics. doesn't mean that ip's not important for us, it usually is. i mean, these counterfeit handbags were probably made in europe. i would not make any publicity. and, indeed, the cds were something of the past. but in our trade agreements, we typically have a strong ipr chapter, probably knows that, i'm sure he's read them more than i have or at least studied them more than i have. where we push the countries to have very high standards and make sure we have enforceable provisions. and as i said, you know, enforcement is very important. we've taken one, maybe two cases i don't know whether -- [inaudible] was also an ip case. but against united states, for example, irish music, the issue of whether or not you have to pay copyright or it's -- the work is copyright protected when

it is by radios in bars, restaurants or something. not very important case, but still showing that enforcement is important to the european union in terms also of ipr. >> so we've got time for one more little lightning one, and i'd like to get into a bit of how the sausage is made on these provisions because there's a lot of divergence among ip systems internationally. there's some agreement on general principle, but particularly in practice ip systems work really differently. they scope different rights differently, you know? in the u.s. it's patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret, but in other systems it's delineated differently, and the rights are certainly scoped differently. so when you're approaching a negotiation with a country or a set of countries with diverging ip systems, how do you get ip provisions in that account for everyone's systems, needs and set the kinds of high standards you guys were talking about?

>> so happy to chat about that. it's -- intellectual property typically is, i think, in the trans-pacific partnership it was 70-plus single-spaced pages with dozens and dozens of footnotes that really will make your eyes gloss over. but, i mean, ultimately it's an opportunity, i think, for negotiators to educate other countries on systems. so typically what happens is, you know, usually -- and the most recent experience is the trans-pacific partnership, i think, which is, you know, one of the reasons, i think, that we think it's a great model. i mean, it certainly could have been improved, but there are a lot of very good things about it. and one of the reasons, again, is it goes to the question michael had which is, you know, you have to bring a number of systems around. so one of the benefits of the ip trade area is it's built on a

sort of a strong foundation of international treaties administered by the world intellectual property organization on the major areas of intellectual property. so for patents, for copyright, for trademarks. it's built on the what we call wipo internet treaties and other places but also on the w,to tris agreement. most countries have implemented those, some are in the process even 25 years later. but at the same time, that's a good starting place. and ultimately, then the context is the areas that are typically most important and difficult to get through are areas like digital copyright, areas like pharmaceutical intellectual property protection, areas like, you know, some of the best in class enforcement provisions, things like that. but i think that the challenge, for example, in tpp from my experience was really just insuring that the other negotiators were keeping up with

technological change and the areas that are now, that countries are legislating about but that are just really important to having that kind of, you know, balanced ecosystem that we talked about. and i think that's an area that even in the work that i did with the european union we really tried to, i think, find shared opportunities. because there is, you know, most countries do have a creative class or want to develop that. so that's actually a great opportunity then to have an educational -- but also a sharing of experiences on those areas. >> and i think it's perfect timing to get ourselves some audience questions. my understanding is someone from the conference is going to grab a mic, pass it around, and we'll see what our audience has to say for themselves. so, any questions? yeah, up there.

>> good morning. at the beginning you mentioned a bit that one of the biggest challenges we're facing in renegotiating these agreements is that the rules that we currently have were developed, you know, two decades ago when the internet was not conceptualizedded remotely into how it's developed. and what i'd be interested to hear from the panel as a whole is to what extent do you see our negotiations today accounting for the developments of tomorrow? you know, we talked a little bit about this interinternet of things, the idea that my toaster is going to be able to, you know, track what kind of bread i'm toasting or something. and, yeah. >> having participated in the negotiation of the original nafta agreement, i can assure you that none of what's happened in the intervening 25 years was

in our minds at that point. that's why the inclusion of the digital trade chapter as such would be a very important part of modernizing that agreement. now, to what extent are we anticipating the technological changes that are to come, that's hard. none of us have a crystal ball, but i think there is an effort in a number of the provisions to make them as forward-looking as possible. there is, for example, also in tpp a provision on electronic signature, electronic authentication of contracts, and in the nafta negotiations they are thinking about technologies like block chain and distributed ledgers which by many indications are going to become much more important in coming

years. the provisions on source cold that damien -- source code that damien mentioned fall into that same category, and there's likewise some thinking in the nafta discussions about protection for algorithms against forced transfer or disclosure. and that, of course, looks to artificial intelligence developments as well. >> it's a great question. i would say you go as far as you can in terms of when you have reasonable predictability or certainty that these technologies will be relevant, but also you need to have consensus and have the political buy-in on both sides when you see a bilateral agreement that, you know, this is doable. and you may even on one hand couple of basic rules continue to apply; thou shalt not

discriminate. i mean, that's very fundamental principle in all our trade agreements. the exceptions and the way they are constructed and applied as ken explained, but also most of these agreements have review clause or have member schisms -- mechanisms so that the agreement can be adapted, modernized. i was told nafta changed 13 times. we have committee structures where both parties are representing the committee, and they can modify the agreement. they can adapt it to change. i think there you have the built-in mechanism if you want to make sure you remain more or less up-to-date. >> just to echo what damien said, i think, for example, tpp was sort of conceptualizedded as a living agreement that every two years or three years or even on a yearly basis you would have meetings of certain issue areas. for example, electronic signatures, that would be an area that the parties would

continue to consult on. and you've seen this in other areas in the wto. they've had subsequent for the initial agreements, you've had subsequent agreements on certain areas like e-commerce, on -- there's telecoms, there's a reference paper, for example, things like that that were all where the parties came back together and said we need to build on the previous agreement provision. so, you know, insuring that there is opportunities to revisit, you know, within reason and then second i think careful treaty drafting. i think that's another area that, you know, one of the benefits of, you know, for example, the general agreement on trade, tariffs and trade, dates back to 1947. but some of those concepts have been well-established, and there have been a lot of opportunities to test them. but then governments also understand what they mean too. so i think that's, you know, the trick, which is finding stability and certainty but leaving open opportunities to

revisit where necessary. >> thank you all for being here today. this was really incredibly informative and useful. i want to ask because it seems like i forget the exact title of free trade in american prosperity, the whole point of this conference, it seems to me, is about, you know, why free trade still matters. and so i was curious if you could all talk a bit about, you know, this idea of populism that's combating or that's kind of rejecting globalization that, you know, doesn't necessarily think that free trade agreements are good, the sort of movement against tpp. how do you try to explain these difficult concepts of, you know, rules-based trading systems, of an open and free internet, of, you know, balancing the interests of privacy with the interests in security, how do you try and explain that to people who maybe have a

difficult grasp of it, who think more in kind of gut instincts, and how do you kind of try to translate these decade-long endeavors to understand those, how do you translate that into a way that resonates to the broader public? >> you know, i don't know, it's -- i think it depends on the audience and your public. so i cannot talk about what happens in this country. i can only talk about my own experience as negotiator for ttip where certainly we had hundreds of thousands of people on the street demonstrating against the trade agreement. we had never seen this before. because, as i said, trade is in our dna. the construction of the european union was built on eliminate the care barriers between the six countries and now twenty-eight, and that creates prosperity. i you have roads around and you build common market, competition and so forth.

so i think people understand fully that, yes, in france, in belgium, germany you actually, well, you can make more money, your company can hire more people. but what we've seen on ttip was a different type of debate, and we've reacted to it. we've reacted to it both on the way we communicate about trade negotiations. we are the most transparent negotiating body in the world. our texts are online. everything we tape is online except for market access where you need to keep your cards close to the chest. but there's no general public interest in those conversations. there is specific sectors are interested in, okay, i want to know if i'm the beef industry, i'm offensive, i want to know how much i'm going to get, i'm defensive, i want to know how much my government is going to sacrifice me if it makes concessions. so and we engage much more on conferrings, public debates -- conversations, public debateing

going to national parliaments. also not only -- so we published the text and then people said, oh, i don't understand these texts. well, that's the text. so can you please publish a text explaining the text which, what we've done. and, of course, you lose a little bit of granularity and detail when you do that, but we've done that. you go on our web site, you see the text and the explanation of the text. not yet the explanation of the explanation. and in ttip we did that in 32 languages, because your -- 22 languages. you also had the language barrier, of course. english is, yes, known by many people, but not everybody can understand a text. and we've also answered on sub substance by, on isds doing a wide public -- [inaudible] which is the right for foreign investors in a host country to sue that host government, and the host government is kind of waiving the immunity.

so we've reacted, we've engaged, and as mike froman used to say, people cannot vote against technological change. they cannot vote against societal change but can vote or their representative can vote against trade agreements and, therefore, the votes against trade agreements kind of crystallizes the opposition to many other things. and so i'd let my american friends respond to the question as regards the conversation how you deal with that in this country. maybe a last word on populism. it's all about information and education. if you follow the brexit debate a little bit, we fully recognize the right of the united can kingdom to leave the european union. it's very sad, and we are managing that process as best as we can. but i think it's key to explain and keep on explaining things. treaties are complex agreements because they try to organize, to

come back to the point of the gentleman there, complex, fastly-changing world. and so you need, you try to encapture all of that in a tree treaty -- treaty. you extract yourself from a deep and comprehensive treaty relationship, well, it affects many areas. >> yeah. i mean, first a comment on european populism over trade. damien probably remembers the negotiating rounds in brussels where there were large, a large papier-mache trojan horse that was pulled up in front of the conference hall where the negotiation was taking place. the populism in europe over trade, i think, surprised the u.s. government to some extent. the strength and the depth of it. the fact that you had germans passionately talking about investor state dispute

settlement in town hall meetings. it has now arrived in the united states, obviously. and there is a real debate tbowpg on in washington -- going on in washington. and you can see it in the back and forth between congress and the administration, for example. the, i think there is an education process as damien has pointed out. agricultural interests, farmers, people who build cars are pointing out how interconnected the north american economy is, and i think this message is getting through to the white house and in connection with nafta to some extent. i don't think there are any easy answers here. for what it's worth, tingal

trade does -- digital trade does not seem to be an area of particular controversy in this respect. i mean, i think there is a broad recognition that this is an important growing area, that, in fact, it generates large surpluses for the united states in terms of, in terms of services. so stormy waters, but i think one can be hopeful still. >> i would definitely echo what my colleagues said. there is a challenge for governments to explain how the benefits of trade, you know, sort of affect people all over the country, you know, in the midwest, the west, the south. i think it's also incumbent on the supporters of trade for stakeholders to business community to also chime in with why they are supporting trade and how it affects not just the

companies themselves, but also, you know, their users and their customers. and i think from facebook's perspective and from the company, i think one of the interesting things about the way our platform operates is that it can be a real force multiplier for small businesses. and as many of you know, small businesses are responsible for, i mean, 90 plus percent of the economy. i mean, they're the key jobs driver, they're the key areas for prosperity. so we commissioned a study along and partnered with morning consult as well as the u.s. chamber to kind of find out what the impact facebook is on small businesses. and, you know, the results were striking. i think one out of three small businesses that are on facebook credit facebook for helping to build their business. more than 50% said that facebook

helps them trade with communities outside of their own and reach new audiences. and also close to 50% said it's helped them hire more workers. so clearly, platforms -- this is not just facebook. if you go across the board with other internet platforms large and small, they can be a force multiplier for the economy. and i think it's really important to get that message out there as well. >> maybe one last word on this question. i think people have looked at the data, people who are against trade are very much the victim of social inequality, have seen their real wages go down and down and down and housing costs go up, educational costs go up, health care costs go up. and so i think there's a real issue to be fully recognized. and from our perspective, we would say you need other policies, that it's not trade policy. trade liberalization will accelerate change, but you need to have the set of social

security safety net, education, infrastructure policies in place so that you can actually help these people to find another job or reskill or find new education options. >> i'm getting the signal that it's time, or do we have time for one more? oh, we have time for one more. great. so one more question. >> thank you all for coming. my name's kyle smith. there was an issue that was brought up about the difference, the need to separate legitimate privacy measures from protectionist measures, and i'd like all three of you to address it a little bit more. and i kind of have a different question for each of you as we discussed, facebook has a very different experience with it than the european union. so for kenneth, would -- you spoke about the need to separate legitimate issues. what do you see as legitimate issues, and how do you approach

them to recognize and protect them when negotiating in these international trade agreements? for probir, with the fake news and everything else, i want to know when facebook is looking at new policies and new principles that guide them to protect user privacy as they consider these initiatives and response, and for damien, which measures do you see being promoted by the e.u. as protectionist, and how do they weaken your ability to credibly negotiate? >> yeah, just to take it in order, very briefly in the interest of time, separating legitimate public policy measures from ones that are protectionist in nature, this is an analysis that has been done in ordinary trade law under, using wto concepts of arbitrary

and discriminatory behavior and necessity. this has been done for years. one has to respect that there are legitimate regulatory interests at stake here. financial or security regulators may have a real need to have access to data on a realtime or near-realtime basis in order to teal with the consequences of -- deal with the consequences of disturbances in financial markets, for example. and no one is denying those. the important thing is to write a set of rules that accommodates those well while making it hard for the ones that have different sorts of motivations. >> so just one brief response on what types of policies that we've seen is in response to

sort of data localization. it doesn't have to be something regulating data. it can be even just protectionist type of response to favor a local infrastructure provider and say you must use this provider in order to do business in our country. which, obviously, would then affect the viability, security and performance of the platform if you have to use sort of a less than optimal service provider. but i think more generally to your question the issue of false news is obviously an extraordinarily important issue for the company. i have a lot of colleagues that are working very actively on this issue. you know, testifying, sort of working with governments. there have and there will be a number of product responses over this past year and in the coming months. and also i just know we launched what's called the facebook journalism project at the beginning of last year, of 2017, to really work with the ecosystem, again, to try to

really address the concerns that have been raised. >> on your question, the issue of discrimination as such, so if you ask your foreign operators to do sort of things to ask for a license that the domestic operators do not need a license, for example, i think more broadly what we tried to do, as i said, we tried to avoid -- [inaudible] between online and offline in a third country, but also we would also look at the exceptions and the necessary -- necessity tests. for example, in the cyber law i mentioned the transfer of source code for entertainment, video games. totally off the mark, for example. so i can come on with other examples, but i don't think we have time for that. thank you. >> well, thank you all so much for coming. if we could get a rousing round of applause for our fantastic

panelists. [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> have is a wonderful rest of the day at the conference and a nice lunch. >> just a quick announcement, there's lunch outside now until 12:45, but we'd love for you to come and join us back in here at i 12:45 when we have a conversation with the e.u. ambassador to the u.s. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> is and this conference on free trade taking a break for about an hour or so. they're due back at 12:45, as you heard. leading off with informed perspectives on trade and later financial regulations and trade. and the last discussion of the day is about free trade and agriculture. we'll have it all here on c-span2 and later at c-span.org. and taking a look at some prime time programming, in january the university of michigan ford school of public policy hosted a forum on u.s. immigration policy and the human toll of border crossings. we'll show that here on c-span2 tonight at 8 eastern. also at 8 over on c-span, several african-american women journalists, including april ryan, nia malika henderson and darlene superville talk about their experiences in covering the trump administration.

>> sunday night on "after words," black lives matter cofounder patrice congress colors with her book, "when they call you a terrorist." she's interviewed by author and journalist torre. >> as we created black lives matter, we knew, oh, we have to get people on board. we have to also interpret when people try to co-op black lives matter. we spent the first year challenging people in our own movement sometimes, people that we love and artists to not say our lives matter, to not use it to say, you know, other communities matter, but to really focus on black people and to be okay and be allies and be in solidarity with black people. and then we took it out to the world. >> watch "after words" sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> now author and historian

allen, but elzo on free speech and the first amendment including student protests against invited speakers on campuses and nfl players kneeling in protest during the playing of the national anthem. this is hosted by the abraham lincoln foundation of the uniyoon league of -- union league of philadelphia. >> good evening. thank you all for being here. i'm going to put my glasses on. i only wear them when i want to see. [laughter] so it is my great pleasure to introduce our speaker for this evening, professor allen guelzo. purchase guelzo is a -- professor guelzo is a teacher, a professor, and he is one of the leading historians in a variety of disciplines, early american history, religion and cultural history. but he is perhaps best known as one of the most prolific and important historians of the american civil war.