as long as they are informed of the consequences of doing that and i agreed with the professor that the opportunity ought to be just as easy to opt in, then i really don't see how it's the business of congress to dictate and i'll leave this to mr. hyman but there are some devices that someone can access netflix through where you can't have that button and there is a rub and the argument isn't simply that we're going to take away somebody's right to share. and it's not being a big brother. i'll go back. i believe the decision is between protecting privacy and promoting commerce and i think we ought to figure out how to do both. >> but i get back to my

fundamental point, the privacy is and has all along been giving people the choice to control their information and who sees it and how it's disclosed. >> so -- so there's no limitation to that choice if i get to make that choice each time. you you're still giving them the choice. actually, we had reference to the testimony that some people believe the ability to use spotify each time. isn't that true? >> but the point is, was it not your inference that maybe you think people ought to be making decisions on that as well? >> that's right. the same thing. you play a play button for a song and should be making a choice by time whether that goes

out. >> the question is, how big of a choice do you make and whether you reconsider it. the question that i would have, technically, if i opt in for all of it, each time netflix brings me a movie, do i have an option to opt out of that or do i have a default button that goes out? >> it ought to be easy but there are people who have web cams and leave them on all the time. some people feel it's ill-advised and invades their privacy. what if they say a web cam will be turned off once every 24 hours and you have to make a choice to turn that back on, that has never been the business of congress about how they publish and with whom they share. privacy is about allowing people to have that choice. >> again, i don't say that your arguments don't carry large weight. i'm just saying in terms of effect waiting the protection of privacy, how are we going to do that? let's say we go to this and

we're going to have an opt in. where's the details of the opt-out? >> i caution against the slippery slope of controlling every kind of information and every kind of technology in terms of how people share? >> what we're saying is you get to make a choice. >> but only the choice you want them to make. >> no. no. there's two choices. opt in or opt out. the point is you still get to make a choice with your privacy and i think there's a legitimate concern that if you opt in will you have the same presence and available information to opt out? so the question i would have of netflix, if you have it in europe, does somebody every movie have an opportunity to opt out? >> on the current implementation in europe, there's an opt-out don't share opportunity.

>> every time? >> mr. wolf pointed out, it's not available on every device. it's available on every computer but the implementation is that you start the movie, the presumption is share and deal with the movie you can elect not to share and then after the movie is displayed on facebook, you can go back and adjust the setting to unshare that. >> here's my question. what he is the difference between an unshare opt out and a share opt out? they are both asking the same question. one's presumption, you're going to share all the time but you're still making a decision each movie. unshare or not unshare. >> well, one is opt in and one is opt out. >> yes. but the decision for privacy is still made individually on every movie that they send downstream. what's the difference?

of having an opt in or opt out? if the whole argument is that they have the same thing? >> it doesn't defeat my argument. that's our implementation. it's not required under the law. >> i understand. >> we've done that because that's what we believe consumers want. the issue for us at the highest level is informed consent. i think most everyone on this panel agrees, i think philosophically, on making sure that consumers understand what information they are disclosing or how their information is being handled. so at the high level i think we are all coming to it from the same approach. i think there's a philosophical difference that is it opt in or opt out? how does congress control the way consumers can share? the presumption is that it's

really within the consumers' control to elect to do that if they so desire. it's an opt-in mechanism and one in which they should be able to get informed consent. i think we would take the position that, yes, viewers can give informed consent and there's an opt-in but if the issue is -- >> privacy is so important and if everybody at the table supports that, what's the -- wrong with having the reminder that you're sharing your privacy? if it's that much of a value, if personal privacy rights are that important, what is wrong with having a reminder that you're giving away your privacy rights? if it's a value to be protected, a virtue to be protected, your

privacy, then what is wrong with the government saying, there should be a reminder that you're giving your privacy away. what is wrong with that? >> there ought to be reminders and they ought to approve cyber education to kids to show them what harm they may face if sharing tmi. >> i don't need any reminders because i don't share anything. >> you're sharing right here. >> i have to, under the ethics law, fill out reminders every year and as part of participating in the senate, there are certain things that i have to do that pardon my responsibility. but the point is, if privacy is of that value and you value the protection of that privacy, what is wrong with us saying, you need to have a reminder and me, the chairman, a 12-year-old, that you need to have a prompt that says, you're giving away your privacy. >> so i can imagine someone

opening up their mobile phone and they are about to talk in a public place and a law in congress that says, you're in a public place, this is a reminder that you may be revealing private information about yourself. click here to proceed. >> well, you can imagine that. again -- >> well, it's not so far away from what you're describing, senator, because if we're going to require it for videos, there's no reason why we would not require it for all of the other information that people choose to share. that's the world we live in. certainly they should be given the right not to share and given the choice not to share but i really don't think it's the job of congress on such a granular basis to make that choice so difficult. >> well, what is difficult? they have to pop the button now to say don't share. there's no difference. they are hitting the button share and unshare right now. so what is difficult about saying share versus unshare? >> i actually don't know what

the experience in europe has been with that, whether viewers object to it. >> you just testified that consumers want that. >> i know. it's available. >> the technology changes over time. so in order to implement that technology today, on some devices we're not able to do t on older legacy devices we can't go back and change those because of the way that they've been designed. so people who have paid for some of our service -- our devices before, we can't give them opt out every time because congress told us that we have to give them an opt out every time? the issue for us is, giving that control to the consumer and if the consumer so elects to share on an ongoing basis and perhaps you can say to opt out of the notice to unshare, if they don't want to be bothered by every time because that is inconvenient for them, they have chosen to give their movie watching on to facebook or other

media platforms, should it be a law that they cannot do that? and i think from our perspective, it's very important that consumers understand what they are doing and be given a choice but dictate exactly how that is implemented, especially in a dynamically changing environment -- >> what you have suggested is the ability to opt out and then the ability to opt out of the opt out question. what's wrong with that? >> fundamentally it's okay as long as you can get to -- >> let me say it again. i'm going to give you consent at netflix or would you not like to see this screen again for six months and let all your sharing continue in your opt -- in other words, for those who want to share everything, don't send me the reminder? >> so if that's what consumers want the way in which we've

implemented, i'm fine doing that. i have a little trouble having that legislated because over time that may change. it may be that six months isn't the right amount of time. is it three months, a year, is it never for some people? from that sense, from my perspective, the fundamental of taking a principle-based approach of consumers having control and consumers understanding what they are opting into and not opting into at their choice is the important thing that we as people and you as legislators ought to focus on that fundamental and it gets implemented given technology and the way people share and change. that should somewhat be left to i am pli me meanted. >> sorry i went over my time. >> i think it brought up a lot of good thing and may not go a

second round because i was afraid the ranking member wouldn't be able to get enough time if we only did one round but the ranking member went into a lot of great points and start early with an alcoholic husband who is afraid of his wife, i thought that was a good point, have a hangover, watch something his wife doesn't approve of, i thought that was a very good point. that was a joke. i was kidding. no. i think that you got -- no, i don't think it's that. i think that joke curved foul. but i think we don't need another round but unless anyone wants to respond to a couple observation that we have here

and in terms of the agreement to opt -- we don't know that. this piece of legislation doesn't say at all how it would work. >> actually, there's a specific provision added to the amendments and -- >> not to opt out of the agreement. >> right. so that's the point. you said that that wouldn't be buried in terms of agreement and you talked about yourself about how this is voluntary. and you're uncomfortable with that being law. this is voluntary because netflix does what you do in europe but no other company would have to do it. so i think that you underscore the point that the ranking member was making, which is it could be incredibly difficult

how to opt out of this, once you agreed -- once you're sharing everything. i see professor mcgeveran nodding his head. i wonder if you have any thoughts on that. >> i'm just agreeing. so the amendment passed in the house bill does set up specific requirements but the bill is silent about what will be required to withdraw that consent later on if you decided you didn't want a movie shared with your particular friends or you canceled the previous authorizations. it doesn't say anything about how that would happen. >> right. and i think that, again, netflix in europe when the devices that works gives people a clearer way to do that. but less scrupulous companies under the law wouldn't be

allowed to do that and you would have to go under the terms and conditions which could be pages and pages long which senator mcgeveran actually reads. >> i read them, too. >> well, come on, they are privacy lawyers. no one reads that stuff. we also got to the point of absurdity when, of course, you don't have to be reminded that when you talk on the phone in public we're not going to make it a law that someone could overhear you. and to reach for that kind of underscores the commonsense that if it's just as easy to click one button that says, i want to share, watch and share as opposed to watch, it's no more

burdensome to share each time on a one by one basis as the law -- the original law claims as opposed to having a consumer of a movie to agree to sharing and not be able to opt out of that because it's buried in some place in terms of an agreement and no one has disputed and that is in the law to dictate that you can find it. so i want to work with the ranking member on this because they got to the gist of this which is that we have to -- when you mentioned 30 days or 60 days or six months or something like, that i think maybe you could

find a thing where someone says, you know what, for the next 30 days, just share everything you like and then remind me in 30 days, or something like that. i just think that this was kind of rushed through the house, maybe, and that we need to work on this. okay? so i'm going to adjourn and i know i'm -- i don't chair that much. so let me find -- the record will be held open for a week. >> thank you. >> thank you all. we as explorers of literature have a responsibility.

do you not? okay. can you create anything you want in the world that you created literature reflecting history and feel comfortable in that creation or determine that i can't offend anybody so i can't write this thing. >> this weekend from "lectures in american history," saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. also on american history tv, he changed the reading habits of americans. a look at the influence of "time," "fortune" magazines. the oil boom hits in texas and texas is made an oil-producing state. visit the homes and infamous streets of beaumont, texas. this weekend on c-span 3. now a. congressional oversight hearing with regard to

the government's testing of the chevy volt after one of the car's batteries caught on fire. we'll hear from the ntsb and the ceo of general motors. this is 2 1/2 hours. >> the committee will come to order. we'll start with our opening statements and then get right to our first panel. administrator, we appreciate you being here today. the delayed public notification of safety risk of the chevy volt raises significant concerns regarding the relationship between the obama administration and general motors. the result was a quasi

committee. president oim has used this private sector boundaries to openly taught the results as a top accomplishment of his administration creating a dynamic where the president is reliant on the success of general motors. providing $7,500 tax credits for the purchase of the volt and other electric vehicles. in addition, to the tune of estimates of $250,000 per vehicle sold. the question before the committee is to what extent this conflict of interest has influenced the way in which this administration has approached its duty to inform consumers about the apparent risk that gm chevy volt can catch fire.

while it remains to be seen if it deserves special treatment, it's clear that the administration has tremendous incentives in the company and the vehicle. in the face of that political dependency, the public notify asian of the safety concerns related to the volt were delayed for six months. the period of time that also coincides with the negotiation over the new fuel economy standards. it's also troubling that during a subcommittee hearing this very subcommittee in october 22011, there were concerns about the advanced vehicle and it would have been of interest to committee members. but for a resourceful bloomberg reporter who reported on the fire in november 2011, it's unclear whether it ever would have made news of the volt fire

made public. it opened a safety defect investigation. in addition, the subcommittee is also concerned # about the preparedness of nitsa to regulate vehicles. president obama set the goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. despite the strong encouragement of the technology, there was a fundamental knowledge about how to handle an electric vehicle after it's been involved in a crash. get the engineers to drain the charge from the battery creating a hazardous situation that led to the explosion. it appears that this lack of knowledge was caused by a lack of preparation. according to documents, in september 2011. this strongly suggests that the agency did not pay close

attention to the unique safety concerns -- excuse me. safety risks associated with the battery technologies in cars before the volt fire occurred. and the risk associated with these vehicles should be addressed. i look forward to hearing the testimony of mr. strict land and i hope that he's more forthcoming today than he was when he was last before us. and with that i now yield to my ranking member mr. kucinich from ohio. >> thank you for being here and i appreciate the opportunity to work with you. today we again welcome david strict land, administrator of the national highway safety administration before our

subcommittee. and then on the number of hours, truck drivers can work between mandatory hearings. claiming they were harmful to business and the economy. today by contrast, it's whether the department of transportation crass fr was strict enough over one product, the chevy volt electric vehicle by general motors. the title is what did nitsa know about the fire and when did they know it? a very detailed report by the national highway traffic safety administrati administration nhtsa, provide a

detailed answer that this hearing claims to ask. gm has also provided extensive documentation pursuant to it is investigation into the volt battery fire that occurred after crash testing. based on what we know so far, nhtsa's new car assessment program appeared to do just what it is intended to do. catch potential safety concerns with new cars before they became a risk to consumers. and general motors appeared to do exactly what we hoped it would do. even before nhtsa determined whether or not there was a real safety issue, it designed improvements to the volt to make its battery better protected from risk of intrusion or fires. so far we have seen no evidence to support the implication that

nhtsa has allowed politics to guide its decision making and i understand my chairman raising that question because there's safety issues here at risk. considering that in the last few months there have been efforts by the majority to defund programs that support the development of technologies for electric and alternative fuel vehicles to take away tax incentives for purchasing electric cars, i am concerned that an effect of this hearing could be for both protecting the u.s. auto manufacturing industry as well as to generally have an adverse effect on the competitiveness. it would be very bad, i think, for our economy to do anything that would try to demolish the

potential for electric vehicles. as we establish at the hearing this subcommittee held on the proposed fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards, it protects public health by climate pollution and additionally, for hybrid cars it's grown jobs on the assembly line and supported the recovery we don't want to be buying lithium ion batteries from china when we can make them here in the united states. and we wan in the united states that are attractive to our customers. they have already established market share. now, let me be clear. i'm well known as a consumer

advocate. i support early public disclosure of safety risks and i hope and expect that works as quick as possible to make intelligent assessments of any safety risks and to disclose them to consumers as soon as possible. and mr. chairman, at a meeting that i had yesterday, i told the gentleman of the same concerns for early disclosure, the kind that we didn't have with toyota, so we have an obligation to ask these questions and to rely on facts as they are. and as a majority wanted to work with me to craft stricter laws mandating it, i hope this committee's activity on this issue and i just want to be --

excuse us for that interruption. i want to be very clear on this, that i wouldn't want this committee's activity on this issue to discourage companies like gm from continuing to innova innovate advanced technologies that will ensure competitiveness. while it appears that we have a different of opinions with respect to whether the chevy volt is a fiery failure or an innovative success, at least we have an agreement that there is a proper role for government to play in regulating business and ensuring public safety. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and let us proceed. >> i i thank the gentleman for his great work on the committee. i now yield to mr. kelly. >> thank you for being here today. my concern has nothing to do with general motors. generalo