's thank you so much for coming. [background noises] >> this week on "the communicators" we want to introduce you to jason oxman, president and ceo of the group called information technology industry council. mr. oxman, who do you represent

with that association? >> iti is the trade association of the technology sector and we represent 70 of the world's largest and most innovative technology companies. we've been around for 103 years founded in 1960 as the associated of business appliance manufacturers, things like scales and time clocks and the like. over those 103 years our industry has changed and so has ipi, or a presentation of tech sector companies is quite broad. >> host: how did you get into this line of work? >> guest: i've been in dc for close to 25 years. came here to work on broadband policies after the 96 act passed at the federal committee cajuns commission but i've been involved in the tech policy sector and since then worked at the fourth trade association most recently a red led the industry before joining iti. >> host: as you will know there are several trade associations that represent tech and some of the companies that you represent

are members of a lot of them. dell, adobe, google, microsoft, et cetera so what is it that you do differently from the other trade associations? >> guest: there are a lot of great trade technology associations and there are industry segment representatives within a broader industry like technology so they're great trade associations that deal with software specific issues or semi conductor specific issues or intellectual property issues and the like but what is unique about iti is we are truly the broad cross-section of the tech sector. our members include software and hardware companies, manufacturers, service providers, network operators, and production companies with very broad range of the industry so we are unique in that we have an opportunity to represent all segments of the technology infrastructure industry. >> host: to help us delve into those public policy issues that iti deals with is steven overly of a political. thank you for being back.

>> thank you for having me. jason, good to chat with you. i want to start off by talking about privacy. this week the ranking member, maria cantwell, released a bill that has a democratic support and i'm curious what you make of that bill and it being released and now particularly given it only has democratic support. >> guest: this is incredibly important issue for the tech sector, iti came out with pencils to advance federal privacy legislation over one year ago. we were the first association to say on behalf of an industry we need federal privacy legislation and this is an currently important for the industry and important for consumers and the components of that privacy legislation that we think are important as one, we can needs to be federal that we need a unified national privacy law that allows both innovators and consumers to aid, know what their rights are and be, how that they are an effective balance of both knowing those rights and still having access to innovative services that consumers demand.

>> we appreciate the movement forward at the federal level. there are a lot of important components to federal privacy legislation but the bill you mentioned certainly will delve into and we know other legislation will be introduced. our hope is we will be bipartisan because, of course, this is a bipartisan issue. the consumer focus here needs to be on empowering consumers to know what their rights are and a focus on transparency. needs to be a focus on control. our hope is the eventual passage of federal privacy law will have all those components to it. >> do you think releasing this bill which only has demagogic support, does that hasten or hamper the prospect of getting it to bipartisan legislation? >> guest: our understanding is there is bipartisan support for this in the senate, in the house. we have seen in your coverage has shown from discussions with members from both sides of the aisle that this is a credibly important and there is a broad understanding but we know

there's understanding from this legislation because numbers have introduced it and they understand the value of federal privacy legislation but of course, bipartisan support is necessary to move everything through congress and our expectation is that although legislation will be introduced from a variety of members that eventually we will move toward something that everyone can agree to that has provisions that everyone agrees and we been pleased that the receptivity of members on both sides of the aisle listening to various constituents, including industry avidly but to consumer groups and to representatives of government at both the state level and internationally, gdp are in europe is a very interesting model and of course california has adopted privacy legislation so there's a lot to fall into the mix. >> host: use a gdp art is an interesting model and that is and overstep from the view of iti? >> guest: no, iti was supportive of dtr that was adopted and we

remain supportive of it today. two very interesting and important things that lead to gdp are, one in europe, at the time that it was under discussion there were 28 separate national privacy regimes that made it virtually impossible for consumers to have any idea on the europewide basis what their rights were under national privacy regime. gdp are unified those 28 separate regimes under one european wide regime. second, on the enforcement side dpr empowers what are called national data protection authorities at the state level, if you will and at the nation level to make sure the laws are enforced. those two things for a very important to us as an industry and we think gdp are has been a success. >> host: that said, with all those different standards california introducing its own and other states looking at that is that in impediment to growth? >> guest: we think it's in

impediment to consumers having access to a unified body of right so they can understand what's being done with their data and understanding what can they can do as a result of that knowledge but we also think it's in impediment to innovation because if we have companies trying to design products that have to ascribe to 50 different privacy regimes across the country it makes it impossible to continue to support the innovation we are looking for. that is why we think federal privacy legislation is so important. >> now that ranking member cantwell has put down a marker with this legislation that she has released what you expect to see from republicans particularly senate commerce chairman roger wicker on this issue? >> guest: we appreciate the fact that ranking member and the chairman of the senate commerce committee have been in discussion and dialogue and obviously this week is a big week for production of legislation as well. we expect and understand that dialogue will continue and there

is a broad recognition from all parties from both sides of the aisle that this legislation needs to happen and that federal privacy legislation isn't readily important and it's not going to move forward unless there's bipartisan agreement so we expect those discussions that have taken place to continue. >> one of the provisions and no senator cantwell bills includes but has caused some debate is the right of individuals to sue technology companies if they rake any of these new data privacy rules. is that an enforcement mechanism that the industry can live with? >> guest: enforcement is important and we include it in iti's privacy principles that need to ensure that a federal privacy law is appropriately enforced and we have to think the federal trade commission is the appropriate body to do that and enforcement, and deed and senator cantwell's bill, as we understand that she includes a provision to expand the resources allocated to the bureau recognizing that they need additional resources from the federal government in order to take on this response ability and we think that's the right place to do it. the concern we have about other

enforcement regimes in addition to the ftc is does that advance the consumer's interests if enforcement is taken place at the federal trade commission we believe that insurance consumers know where they can go if they need enforcement of a federal privacy law and to whose jurisdiction they are subject if you put that jurisdiction in private hands and if you put the ability of consumers to get the redress they need in private hands and we think that's less effective than allowing the ftc to do it. >> i support a bill that supports us private right of action or is that a redline for the folks in your association? >> guest: we been focused on moving legislation forward and being part of the dialogue and part of the discussion so if there were particular provisions in a bill that a member of congress wanted to ask at the industry about we be happy to provide that input. again, our focus at this point is moving legislation forward,

not on identifying any particular provision as one would stop things from happeni happening. our goal at this point having laid the marker down we think federal privacy legislation needs to happen is to do whatever we can to move it forward. >> host: woodyard member groups to be supportive a gdp are like structure here in the state? >> guest: i made mention before of the iti possibles that we have published in those possibles actually borrow quite a bit from gdp are and we think it's an appropriate framework to use for discussions and obviously the u.s. market is different than europe and so not every provision of necessary carries over or translates to what would work in the u.s. market and indeed, california has privacy legislation as well and you mentioned it before but there are provisions in california at legislation that we believe should be included in possibles that advance federal privacy legislation as well. >> i want to talk about some of the trade talks happening at many of them are in washington at the moment but we heard a speaker nancy pelosi comment this week that congress and the

trump and administration are making progress on us-mexico canada trade agreement and i know there are digital provisions in there that are important to your members and one that i want to ask about is the proposal to expand liability protections for internet media reads like facebook or google for instance. does iti still support including those provisions in a u.s. mca trade agreements? >> guest: there are a lot of provisions that address the digital economy in the u.s. mca. this is of a placement for nafta which, as we no, is decades old and has a provision in it related to the telegraph. that is how old it is. there is work that needs to be done. the digital provisions are particularly important because cross-border data flows are uniquely important to the technology industry. we are pleased with the provisions that have been negotiated in nafta and it is one of our top priorities to do everything we can to encourage passage of the u.s. mca and as

you noted we think there's been good progress in the and meditation has done a traffic job of working openly with congress to move it forward and we are optimistic it will happen quickly. >> host: where did those provisions benefit your member companies and why are you pleased with him? >> guest: one of the biggest areas of coverage for digital provisions in that u.s. mca is what we call cross-border data flows but it's the ability of companies to move data across borders to ensure that what are called data localization policies aren't adopted by nations but policies that would require data to never cross the borders. with the advent of cloud services and other digital services is particularly important for comedies to have the ability to send data across borders and that's a really important provision but not in nafta because at the time technology did not exist but it is in u.s. mca we think it's important. >> the one provision in the u.s. mca i mentioned around section 230 protections i know when ipi

first commented on u.s. mca it was supportive of those provisions and since then we seen some numbers suggest they shouldn't be in the trade agreement, particularly ibm and oracle. where are has your view changed on that or your support for those provisions have a change as they progressed? >> guest: section 230 is included in certain trade agreement because it is u.s. law. our advocacy was focused on the fact that provision because it is effective federal law in the united states was of opiates for inclusion in trade talks. whether those provisions will included in trade talks going forward, that is unknown and it's hypothetical and it certainly is possible but they will be and i think it's important to ensure that our trade negotiations reflect the priorities of the u.s. economy, section 230 has been important to the development of the internet economy, if you will in the united states and i think

that's why it was included in the trade talks at the time. it is currently federal law so we did gets important we include that in the discussions as well. >> elsewhere in the world we are in trade talks with china and those have shown some signs of progress, including we just saw an announcement out of beijing from vague guidelines around intellectual property theft which i know is a paramount issue to your members when it comes to china. does that give you some kind of confidence that we might be greater punishment or greater penalty for china for ip theft? >> guest: it's a huge priority and part of why we think it's important is the trump administration is friendly, doing a good job in putting pressure on china to change some fundamental flaws in the way they do business. intellectual property theft is enormously important issue for the technology industry so china has other policies that make it enormously difficult for he is comedies to compete fairly and

effectively in china, and away we don't make it difficult for them to compete financial services comedies for example, car networks can issue cards and can offer service in china but chinese technology companies can do so here in the u.s. cross-border data flows are restrictive in china and china imposes restrictive on buddies to do business without a local partner, if you will and the chinese government maintain the ability to take information at will so all these fun mental issues need to be addressed and we think it's important that we address them in the context of a trade agreements. we remain optimistic that we can get that trade agreement on and as you noted we seen announcements about promises of reform and those announcements have been made before and we appreciate the administration is not just reliant on public announcements out of china but rather looking for an actual concrete agreement to be signed. >> what enforcement of these issues will look like? what that's one of the criticisms or concerns in the past is that there are promises or art agreements that are made but then there is no backing

that up. if you were to draft an ideal trade agreement with china what enforcement would be in place for those measures? >> guest: enforcement isn't readily important. as you noted with china in particular this is been an issue. even with china's entering the npo we've seen enforcement challenges. our view is that the trump administration is on the right path and ensuring those enforcement mechanisms are in there from covering this issue that is friendly one of the holdups has been china's unwillingness to include concrete enforcement mechanisms in the agreement and some accounts of the challenges that cause china to walk away is because of the u.s. consistent on enforcement provisions in the agreement. we agree they have to be in there and we are looking forward china moving on that issue and realizing the importance. >> host: jason oxman, to build up on what steven was talking about, intellectual property

theft and the chinese government involvement in the tech sector, are we getting to a point where the world wide web and the internet will be bifurcated and it will be different internet for different people? >> guest: i certainly hope not. we seem china take steps in that direction and russia announced to their couple weeks ago their desire to crate a russian internet and that moves us in the wrong direction. we are a global economy in a global people and the technology industry is particularly focused on deploying innovative products and services that connect us all and i fear that in some circumstances we are moving in that direction and china and russia being two examples of that. i hope we don't end up there that is not where we want to be but the risk of that is -- it's real. >> a lot of your members do manufacturing in china and has us become harder under this

administer agent to do business with china with concerns of national security and cyber security and issues we have seen raised by trump but also by congress. >> guest: these are important issues and obvious the u.s. companies stay close attention to national severity issues but it is not just a u.s. issue but around the world. every nation is charged with charging its citizens and what we seen from the top administration we think is a lot of laudable and a move toward using a trade agreement as a way to address these issues and if we can get a good trade agreement with china fine but that should address the issues and cyber security and related to trade and supply chain. two important things to remember as we continue these discussions. one, you do have a global supply chain and a global supply chain means u.s. manufacturers rely on components that are manufactured around the world. we want to continue that global flow of products and services, data and physical products as

well. second thing, 90% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states. for products and services and support to have a global addressable market and we need to see that address as well. on the national security issues, as you mentioned, that is a very important role of government and we been encouraged by the way in which the trump administration has sought to address these issues and having rigorous fact-based analysis to ensure that if action is going to be taken on national security grounds it is done because there is initials a great threat to address. >> i know you seen announcements out of the commerce apartment that they want to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis. for instance, do you believe that rigorous analysis is happening and there have been some suggested that some penalties this a administration has imposed like on huawei are more motivated by trade talks and economic interest the national security interests. >> guest: given those concerns

that the exactly why we do support the way the trump administration has moved this forward. the announcement you're referencing for my commerce to permit week is one that implements the may executive order and the way the commerce deferment is implement tenet it we think very positively for two. one it does put into place a rigorous case-by-case fact-based analysis reflecting that national security concerns are what we should be examining, not ancillary issues. second thing it does is it opens a role making proceeding to provide opportunity for comment from industry and other stakeholders to make sure the rules are put in place and going to address those national security concerns. >> this is the problem and what government does that protects citizens so these are important issues to address. >> host: before we run out of time i want to make sure we turn to antitrust and there has been talked about breaking up the facebook, google of the world and what are your thoughts?

>> guest: antitrust is important body of law that has been used over the history of the country and the hundred year history of the antitrust laws to address marketplace failures. what's important to remember is when we look back at where government has stepped in to address market issues the best example being the breakup of att that started in 1982. that was to address monopoly telecom market and i think we've all benefited consumers, industry and the government itself from the opening of local telecom markets to competition. that was a very rare case. it was close to 40 years ago and it was a very long process that played out over a course of decades. antitrust matters are long for some it matters there's been speculation about what is being looked into and we don't really have a lot of facts but i think it's important to think remember our primary goal should be to ensure consumers can benefit from the best, most robust, most

innovative technologies and how important this is to our economy and the technology industry is 10% of the economy and $2 trillion of economic and any activity. those are important factors to remember and as law-enforcement does it investigate a work. >> host: when facebook buys up a whatsapp or instagram et cetera isn't that -- isn't that slowing or quashing the competition? >> guest: those committees was a those acquisitions have been successful on the government to approve those up occasions as well but putting aside any individual companies directions with the government i think the broader issue is that we need to remember antitrust as a body of law is a lawn for smith matter and that those investigations sometimes play out over decades and many properties in history have had ten, 12, 13 year interactions that have ended with no action by the government and in fact, the same day the government announced the pickup

of att announced they were dropping a 13 -year-old investigation of ibm for antitrust violations. supported to look at that in his support term of her atmospheric he that antitrust carries a big weight and people think about it is a very heavy action and indeed, it is. we need to remember as national security issues a case-by-case basis based on rigorous analysis with of facts and law this is the way we should look at these. >> i want to ask because we been to china but if we could take it to france, france is looking and the digital service techs that compose a text of companies facebook or google that electronic commerce or services and i know it's a concern of your members and of your association and have you heard developments on how talks between the u.s. and france are going. >> guest: yet, this is important for taxation who global indications and the french digital service attacks that you

are referencing actually has been fairly widely reported as applying only to a small number of u.s. companies so we were concerned about the impact of the tax on innovation. our view at ipi on these issues is they should not be country specific solutions and if we need a updated tax structure should be done on an international basis and the oec is an organization that looking into these issues and it's a member of the oa cd and we believe that the proper venue for addressing these issues. the united states government did open and devastation under 301 is the provision that it investigates these matters and that is still pending. u.s. and france have been in heavy discussion about this. france has indicated at least publicly that they are interested in allowing the oecd's as a result of this issue and not the best possible outcome. >> i know the wto is looking at their moratorium on e-commerce

and i wonder and i believe it set to expire next month if i am not mistaken but do you have any expectations for whether that could be renewed or what might come of that celebration? >> guest: that's a parallel discussion and what is interesting about the wto doing it is as with the oa cd is a worldwide body and they have the ability to adopt policies that multiple nations will address. the multilateral national solution, i should say, they are looking for and we think it is best out of the oa cd. they've made a lot of progress in the oa cd has specific country members but almost every country on earth follows the oecd guidelines we think that's the best way to get to a truly global solution. >> if france imposes its own commerce that we may see bigger countries like india, south africa, will they impose their own taxes this year?

>> guest: many countries have suggested they will do so. on the geographic scope obviously that is problematic if you have different countries adopting different regimes for taxation but also with innovation point of view, if you will, it makes it more difficult if we -- we are trying to effectively ring of services and treat them differently for tax purposes and physical goods and that is not a good way and that's not a weight that will promote innovation so that is what our concern is. >> host: jason oxman, let's bring it to election security. is rti involved in that? >> guest: our member companies are the countries that do provide election security and it's an enormously important issue but it's in the headlines because we've seen attempts to interfere with u.s. elections and our member companies are focused on cybersecurity products generally so it's securing election infrastructure and secure in healthcare infra structure and securing retail infra structure and everything that is connected if you will need to be secured. on the election security issues

specifically what we have been pleased with the willingness of federal and state and local governments to partner with technology companies in search of good solutions and we are doing everything we can as an industry to support our partners that are responsible for elections and we are cautiously optimistic, if you will, that enough jurisdictions will adopt these technologies to do a better job of securing our info structure. >> host: cybersecurity and industrial complex is becoming a term, isn't it? >> guest: it is indeed. it's a term because of the necessity of that partnership with u.s. government is one of the largest purchasers of technology in the world. and if you added state and county and local governments as well you have a multitrillion dollar market for purchases of technology and refocused at iti on public sector, private partnerships and we just brought on board the former cio of the

fbi to be our public-sector efforts because of the importance of these issues. >> host: is steven overly, temper one more question. >> we seen in the last years in washington increased criticism of a section of the tech appellation or sect tech companies particularly internet companies and some of that is coming from other parts of the industry. i'm curious as the leader of an organization that represents so many companies how is the way the conversation has changed in washington impacting your organization and your lobbying approach with lawmakers? >> guest: it is interesting and it is something every industry experiences, the magic of trade associations that we bring together the fiercest marketplace competitors around the table and we asked them to take off our company has been put on their industry hats and work collaboratively where we can find areas to find collaborative interests, if you will. we move those forward to the benefit of the entire industry. we are different from any other

industry segments from pharmaceuticals to paint and coatings every trade association has their competitors that are around the table and not do things to benefit the industry and sometimes they sue each other and sometimes they compete against each other and sometimes they take ads against each other. what is interesting you asked about how this has changed over time if we were having this conversation 15 years ago it would have been about the fierce marketplace policy ballas between the tele- companies and the tele- goes. you don't hear a lot about that anymore because i found more areas of overlap and consensus than they did 15 years ago when they were battling each other at the market place. fifteen years before that is about the long distant competitors in the local telephone companies and again natalie we hear about a lot today. fifteen years from now the tech industry probably won't be the poster child for inter- discussions. but today, i think, there are more areas of consensus then it

not in one of the reasons that iti has been around for 103 years is because we are focused on spending our time within those areas consensus and do nothing we can to promote an innovation focused economy. >> host: our guest on the communicators this week has been jason oxman, president and ceo of the information technology industry council. our guest reporter has been a steven overly of political, gentlemen thank you very much for this communicators and all others are available as podcasts. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the sipping court and public policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your own mind. crated by cable in 1979, c-span has brought to you by your local

or cable or satellite provider. c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> starting now is book tv on c-span2. [applause] >> good evening everyone and welcome to the george washington university. i am pleased to welcome you to tonight's event presented in partnership with politics and prose bookstore and the third in the george washington university's presidential distinguished event series. we launched the series last investor to give our students the opportunity here from renowned leaders and individuals who bring illuminating dialogue, insight and inspiration to our mp