mobile forensic exams have increased exponentially at 220% in three years. after seven years of experience, i continue to discover new apps. our office is investigating an attempted murder in the context of domestic violence. we discovered spyware running in stealth mode on the mobile device. it advertises itself as a seven dollar per rental monitoring software which can be installed on smartphones phones to text -- toessages, called, and track text messages, calls, or any data. they notice patterns that the abuser's knowledge about the victim's life and whereabouts when the abuser has no way of knowing. my department deals with only felony cases, stalking apps are

frequently used in misdemeanor domestic violence cases. it is labor-intensive and requires expensive specialized equipment. most law enforcement agencies however do not have the resources, equipment, staffing, or training to examine mobile devices. to have atunate different tools and dedicated staff for mobile examinations. other counties and federal agencies request our assistance. in a survey by the minnesota coalition for battered women, advocates indicated cyber stalking was the number one priority for law enforcement training. because technology frequently used to stop victims and violate protective -- stock victims and violate protective orders. i worked closely with the minnesota coalition for battered women and its programs to train over 3000 domestic and sexual violence advocates, law

enforcement, prosecutors, and judges since 2009. our efforts have borne fruit, but strained resources and a lack of awareness undercut our ability to respond to increasing reports of cyber stalking. this erodes victims trust in the criminal justice system. feel -- victims still crazy when they report the installed stalking apps. when law enforcement can respond to reports -- cannot respond to reports, the victims stop reporting crimes. this act is a major step in addressing the problem. absently required to notify the user a second time -- apps will be required to notify the user a second time.

victims will then be notified when the perpetrator does not have access to their phone. just like in human trafficking, when craigslist no longer allowed certain ads, the company emerged and began to offer those ads. it comes down to economics. stalkingg stealth gps apps, we make it unprofitable for the companies to make these programs. brings public awareness to the issue by requiring information gathering. ,t supports victim safety making sure a stalking app cannot disguise itself as an employee or family tracking app or as a flashlight app. act ofyou to support the 2014. thank you to the committee and for your support of law

enforcement efforts to keep domestic violence victims and our community safe. >> thank you, detective hill. mr. mastria? good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak at this important hearing. to ensure consumers have access to the same transparency control in mobile as they do on desktop. to thiscular interest committee are mobile principles required consent for collection data. leaving the consumer in charge. last year, the da released its mobile guidance, providing controls.riendly

this important self initiated update to our principles reflects the market reality that customers increasingly engage with each other on a variety of screens. the daa is a nonprofit organization founded by the associations. organizations came together in 2008 to develop self-regulatory principles to cover the collection. in 2012, the obama administration praised the daa program as a model of success. federal trade commission commissioner was quoted as calling the daa one of the great success stories in the privacy space. the internet is a tremendous of economic growth. mobile advertising by itself totaled more than $7 billion last year and that is more than 100% and reese.

-- increase. revenue subsidizes the content and services we all enjoy. advertisersws that pay several times more for relevant ads and as a result, this generates greater revenue to support free content. consumers also engage more actively with relative -- relevant ads. companies have a vested interest in getting this right. self-regulation is the ideal way to address the interplay of privacy and online and mobile advertising. while preserving innovation. it provides industry as demonstrated either multiple updates to our program with a nimble way of responding to new market challenges presented by a still evolving ecosystem. the mobile program applies broadly to a diverse set of actors who work together to deliver relevant advertising. enhanced notice outside of the

privacy policy, consent for location data, and strong independent enforcement mechanisms. these principles are intended to increase consumers trust and confidence. the mobile program leverages an already successful universal icon to give consumers transparency control. in april of this year, daa issued specific guidance on how to provide this transparency tool in mobile. this will provide companies and consumers a consistent reliable user experience in multiple screens in which they interact. this will provide companies a consumer friendly way to provide notice and choice outside the privacy policy. this advancement bills on the level of industry cooperation which has led to daa to being served globally.

release a new mobile choice app. of particular relevance to this hearing and today, cyber stalking is a serious issue. criminal activity is separate and apart from a legitimate commercial use is covered by daa. -- the daa program requires and -- consent higher to collection. we have required privacy friendly tools, including notice, in the download process, notice at first install or other similar measures to ensure that companies are transparent about data collection and consumers can make informed choices. to help ensure both the mechanisms we require are used

in the consumer choices are honored, we rely on our accountability programs. accountability is a key feature of the daa program. all of our principles are backed by the enforcement programs administered by the better business bureau. there have been more than three dozen publicly announced enforcement programs under this program to date. isould submit that the daa the story of empowering consumers to transparency and control. it is adapted consumer controls to meet quickly evolving market changes and preferences. while responsibly supporting the investment necessary to fund free or lower-cost products and services. i am pleased to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. greenberg and i

am the executive director of the national consumers league. it was founded in 1999 and is the pioneering consumer organization. we advocate on behalf of consumers and workers in the united states and abroad. supreme court justice louis landmarknoted in a 1928 decision that the right to privacy is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. we could not agree more. by the seat is a cornerstone of consumer protection. ,he ubiquity of smartphones tablets, and mobile devices has dramatically change the way consumers interact. ofnks to the widespread use location data, consumers can navigate to their favorite coffee shops, discover the closest sushi restaurant, and be more easily located by emergency responders. it has provided immense consumer business -- benefits.

however, as the collection has become an integral part of the mobile ecosystem, so too has consumer concern over the use and misuse of the data. 65% of consumers were very concerned that smartphone apps could access their personal locations, ands, other data without their permission. a similar los angeles poll showed that 82% of those surveyed were either very or somewhat concerned about the internet, smartphone firms collecting their information. this should not be surprising. gained fromion data a desktop computer, data from mobile phones is inherently personal and can be used to disclose information that in many cases consumers would rather be kept private. some ofotomayor this up perfectly -- sound this

up perfectly. disclosing gps data will be trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion theic, the strip club, criminal defense attorney, the by the hour motel, the mosque, the synagogue, the church, a gay bar. the consent -- the consensus among advocates and government agencies is that there is no adequate legal framework to protect consumer location data in the current and ever evolving mobile ecosystem. absent such a framework, consumers must rely on business to adhere to a variety company policies and his -- and industry best practices. is necessary and will help to protect sensitive information that consumers use,

such as location data. it would do just that, this bill would establish a level playing field for businesses that seek to collect and share location data. it would help to restore consumer trust and ensure that the many benefits of this technology continue to flow to consumers and the economy while adhering to conform rules of the road. in particular, it we believe the bills often provisions would allow consumers to take control over their private location information giving them the right to choose the share -- choose to share the information or not and be informed of how their location data will be used and by whom. by prohibiting so-called stalking apps, the law will outlaw a class of inherently deceptive and predatory applications that can compromise personal safety of domestic violence victims.

no federal law prohibits the operation of these apps, which are designed to run secretly. we strongly believe the section providing for private action are critical. resources, aited narrowly defined plan of action gives an extra player protection to consumers while addressing industry concerns about abuses of that private right of action. i would like to reiterate our strong support for the bill. deserve thepect and privacy of their location information will be protect it. absent such protections, consumers may become less trusting, which will be harmful to innovation and the economy as a whole. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to answering any questions you may have.

-- k yk you, mr. green miss greenberg. ms. greenberg., thank you, chairman, ranking member, members of the kemeny. i appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony today. are a think tank focusing on policies to support technological innovation. it is legislation geolocation byhe third parties and the second is the use of information by individuals. the issue of limiting the collection of geolocation by third parties would stifle

innovation in an area that is rapidly evolving. we have seen for men this growth in innovation -- location-based invices and the u.s. has led this space. the top 10 internet companies in the world, eight of them are american. this is in part because of our approach to it innovation. it has been to not regulate ahead of time, unlike europe, which is home to none of those 10. the have embraced precautionary principle to regulate well in advance of any real harms. this is important for location-based services, especially because there is tremendous innovation happening in this space and it will continue to happen. we will see more innovation in the next five years than in the last. things like in car navigation and infotainment systems, connected devices, facial recognition, these are interesting and important

technologies and they do not lend themselves to a slower moving regulatory process. aboutd support wha self-regulation being a better approach. from administrator rich, the ftc has already taken action and has ability to .ontinue we already see self-regulation working. the digital advertising initiative and on the two major platforms, ios and android, consumers have the ability to load a -- ability to turn it off and turn it on. at this point, there is no evidence or very little evidence of actual harms arising from commercial use. use, i don'tcial believe there are really any evidence of harm. all of the concerned expressed

by privacy advocates use stems from speculative harms that could happen, but not ones that have happened. our view is that some of the bevisions in the bill could stifled -- stifling innovation, particularly in the app space. a lot of these companies, if they were faced with a million dollar fine, for making a small coding mistake or putting something inaccurate on a would thinkelieve twice about developing a mobile lab. -- a mobile app. there are many apps that run in the background that are very important. carrier iq is a diagnostic app. it enables the system to work so carriers know when calls are dropped.

these are apps we want to have running on our phone because they are acting in the public good. some of theand -- sections dealing with notice can be problematic. to list everyas single company from a business perspective, it could compromise some of their commercial information. moving onto the domestic violence, i commend you on your efforts. this is the most important part of the bill. i think a couple of components -- we would to provide some suggestions on. at the 24-hour seven days notice provision currently applies to all apps, including the weather channel or google maps or yelp. -- they simply

cannot get access to the geolocation data that stays there. that is very different than one of the stalking apps, very different from amber alert gps teen. i would urge you to think about rule onlythat 24-7 two apps where individuals can get access to the gps stream. the stalker cannot use the weather channel to stalk his or her victim. the issue is regulating the behavior of the app. i would urge you to think about international access. one of the concerns we have is even if we can shut down these

stalkerstalking apps, may be able to get access overseas and thinking about that question, could there be spyking, the same sort of i and it relocates to the cayman islands, could we block access to those? think geolocation offers many opportunities for innovation and regulation is premature. you, senator, for your leadership on the criminalization of the stalking apps. >> thank you, dr. atkinson. >> good afternoon. is cindy southworth. representing the minnesota coalition for battered women.

all 56 coalitions. i founded the safety net project to support survivors, train police, and work with technologists and policymakers on thoughtful innovation. we work closely with many technology companies. we serve on the safety advisory board. presented, we have over 900 trainings to more than 65,000 practitioners. we love technology. we think of ourselves as the geeks of the domestic violence movement. i want to say that stalkers use location tracking services, devices, andgps smartphone applications. some spyware is one of the most problematic. it allows abusers to monitor much more than location.

it does not notify the victim that it has been installed. a standard feature that developers go to great lengths to hide, it does not show up on most -- most phones as an installed app. these are brazenly marketed to stalkers. heavily focusing on the features that will help you spy on your spouse. one of the most disturbing apps i have seen recently is called hello spy and has a long list of stalking features and has a continuous animated image on their main webpage showing a scene from a movie where a man roughly shoves a woman off the headfirst.

another webpage, there is a photo of a man grabbing a woman's arm. features,the including tracfone location. many of the apps on the next poster are developed and advertise directly to stalkers to facilitate crimes. gps devices and apps may have aided and offender in locating the victim to commit murder. location tracking was just one piece of an overwhelming list of tactics. in 2009, in seattle, a man used a location service on his wife's phone to track her to a local store. he shot and killed their five children and then himself. in philadelphia, a man installed a tracking device on his ex's

car. electronic medications privacy act prohibits the manufacture, distribution, possession of advertising. it does not cover devices that surreptitiously track location information. -- i would be happy to send this post are back with the director to give to her prosecutor friends at doj. there are apps the track only gps location and do not offer eavesdropping capabilities. instancee of only one where the department of justice hasn't died a creator of spyware. -- has indicted a creator of spyware. i would be delighted if the developer at hello spy would join this creator and was indicted shortly.

priord to require consent to tracking or sharing information. survivors of abuse must be informed about how their location information will be used and shared. prominent transparent and easy to understand. location tracking must be transparent and visible to users. consent is critical, but consent alone is insufficient. and somes can be added of those safeguards already exists on the apple technology letting people know that your location is being tracked. if gps technology is being used legitimately, there is no need for stealth mode. in 2005, the anti-spyware coalition created a consensus definition of spyware which stated that tracking software done covertly is spying. this

this is probably the most important development behind decriminalization. criminalize the operations to surreptitiously track and facilitate a crime. it is past time to intercept tracking location and intercepting electronic communication. no one should profit from encouraging or enabling criminal act. stalking cap and device -- app and devices are making money. there should be a very modest private right of action. think, is quite low. we have insurance that would cover the accidental oversight. it should not cover that if you are doing it willfully with mallon tenant.

in fact parallel state laws. since the overwhelming majority of these investigations are done at the local level, we hope this model will become a model for state statute. positiveeen countless ways that technology can increase the safety and support of victims and survivors of abuse and stalking. we think verizon, facebook, the application developers alliance, and so many more for working with us to increase victims safety. this will never really impact a handful of ad actors that designer operate products sold crimes.itate terrifying senator franken, thank you for your tireless efforts to end violence against women. thank you for your long support of the violence against women act. >> thank you. seven minute rounds for questioning.

detective, you mentioned that you are investigating an attempted murder where the victim was being tracked by a stocking cap -- stalking app that advertised itself as parental monitoring software. we had a public hearing to debate this bill teat of years ago and i read on the website that it was named e-phone tracker. suspect your spouse is cheating? track every text, call, every move they make using our easy cell phone spy software. there's a lot of press about it after that hearing. we checkedame day the website again and this is what it looked like. is your child exposed to sexting? all the stuff about your spouse was gone.

is a common for apps to disguise themselves like this? >> absolutely. they will typically advertise themselves as being a family tracker or to track your employees. >> why don't you just go after stalking apps and leave legitimate apps alone but these are two separate issues. your answer tells me that if we want to stop the stalking apps, we cannot target just those that label themselves as that. we also have to lay down a few basic rules of the road for any that is collecting your basic location information. like they will just change the name to something else stalkers will figure out. >> we don't want to interfere with a legitimate parental

monitoring app, but we do want to block those that are pretending to be something they are not. how do you do that? >> legitimate parental monitoring apps if they follow the best practice of the visible.based apps are the child knows they are being monitored and they have control functions. they can see there is monitoring occurring. there is no problem knowing that your device is being monitored. the spyware industry definition says if it is a monitoring product, it is spying if it's not visible to the user. there is no exception for a child or employee. need consent but they would still need notice. or provision is absolutely critical here. -- dr. atkinson,

you and your testimony say that reminders might make it harder for parents to keep track of kids because they will know they are being tracked. as you just heard, we cannot limit the reminders only to apps that call themselves stalking apps. a lot pretend to be parental and things like that. more importantly, i disagree with you that the provision proved too broad for all using geolocation data." my bill requires minors only us a nap is running in a way that is intercept the ball. -- only if an app is running inperceptible. you say this is a legitimate app

imperceptibleably to the user." took a look at the home screen on my iphone and there it was. this is not my iphone but it is second from the left on the top there and it shows up on your .ome screen by default you cannot delete it. it is impossible. every time it gets your location, a little arrow pops up . i don't know if you can see this . it is also in your privacy settings under location services . p is reallyd book ap easy to perceive, at least to

me. any apps like passbook app would not have to remind of anything under my bill. my point is that it is not a app ishat passbook running transparently. that is just the industry best actress. they will not have to send any extra reminders using best actresses. dr. atkinson, isn't it already industry best practice that location apps run in a way that they are transparent to the user? >> i should have made it more clear but imperceptible is perhaps a vague standard. you should look at what should be a better definition in the bill as what is imperceptible related but to the size of the icon, seeing it in the list.

that is 1.i was trying to make their. . fully agree with you there are tracking apps, or apps report location that run in the background like carrier iq, and an individual cannot access them. i cannot go to the website and find where my phone is. that's the point i was making. make sure the definition of any of these apps is only for those were an individual could but something on the phone and then the individual could get access to that data stream. otherwise, there are others fused for system performance. >> i really don't think carrier iq should be a model here. people were outraged when they found out the software was running in secret.

user,, the single biggest remove the software from 26 million devices. i'm sure there are isolated cases where the reminder might the superfluous or it might be difficult. this just seems, by and large, very straightforward to me. >> in your written testimony, you note that there are a number of products that would be considered mobile devices under the legislation but they are not smart phones. these are like smart shoe apps, watchers, health devices that

shows you how many steps you've walked that day. notifications.ow stifle innovation in these areas if you have issues or regulations that cover that? >> i think it could. ms. southworth mentioned an app that is a gps device and the amber alert sells a gps device you can put in your child back act. they could put one of those devices in someone's trunk. i support the notion that we should have notice on those, there are certainly other technologies where you could not do that. then you have some of the new things. how would you do notice on a show, a shirt, something like that.

there could be notice when you are doing an actual computer-like device. that, sheng up on said the location privacy protection act will narrowly impact a handful of bad actors that designer operate products created or sold to facilitate terrifying crimes. is that inaccurate description of the legislation, that it would simply impact a handful of bad actors? some of the proponents towards the end of the bill would certainly do that and are needed. bill is really just focused on broad, generalized, commercial use of geolocation data which has nothing to do with stalking, no relation to stalking or identity theft.

the bill would address those issues in a way that i think could limit innovation. >> i certainly agree on that point. as a big part of the bill that i support. stalking legislation is part of about i remain concerned some of the stifling innovation. do you want to address back? senator flake, thank you. we see that self-regulation has been effect is and up to the and up to theive task giving control on the desk top environment and we're bringing it to the mobile environment. the desktop environment we have been in for over three years and later this year we will be releasing the mobile choice app which has been a work in progress now for about a year. we released a mobile guidance and an industry code for how to display notice.

earlier this year, it has been a four-step process that will actually make that guidance and forcible. >> do you share mr. atkinson's concern that some of these new are interactive and that there is no way even for best actresses or businesses to band together for notification if there is no interaction with the user. in your view, does that stifle innovation? >> one reason we think self-regulation works -- i want to limit my answer to the scope of the program that i run. reason we think that innovation is better served by self-regulation is we can quickly adapt and quickly moved to new business models. not that many are simply thinking about apps, cross app data, precise location.

we have not only a set of principles in place and guidance for companies to follow but we to beso putting out tools able to make choices. that has happened and they fairly quick amount of time. if there are challenges to the , that seemsd that to be a quick way to adapt to those changes. >> in your view, it could be far more nimble than perhaps government regulation in this regard. >> that's more eloquently than i could, but yes. >> they will share users location information without consent of any third party that they wish. they have little power to stop them but in that scenario, doesn't the consumer have the ability to use the service or the app? certainly, that's true.

there are many, many apps that consumers find very useful that they need to get from one place to another and i don't think that should mean that they sacrifice their privacy or their say what are you using this data for? don't i have the right to say? you need to let me know this information is being shared and with whom it is being shared. can bridge that gap without interfering with a companies ability to innovate and some of the statements that have been made here. >> mr. atkinson, you noted that there were many beneficial uses of tracking apps and mention examples of the loved one locator, project lifesaver, if someone has autism, dementia, alzheimer's, family members are

track and make sure there is a safe zone that they stay within. in the billceptions for that, but some concerns have been raised where there are situations where a sibling, a close family friend, or others who are not a parent or legal guardian might want to be involved in that. do you want to address that in more detail? it's important to understand that stalking is not a technological term. it's a behavioral term. the technological term. i do not believe, nor does the bill do this, but we should and tracking applications. enormous benefits for families and others who want to know where their device is, where their family members are. we need to make sure that we can go forward with that. but i'm somewhat concerned about

, i don't believe we will end up with a situation where companies will change their names and they will just be family trackers. fundamentally, i don't know how .e can solve the problem for example, on the notification, any person who installs a nap on the phone on ios or android, you can turn off notification. -- any person who installs an app. how do you monitor your phone? how do you look at the apps running list? all of those things. in both of those operating systems right now, you can just turn off notifications. more complicated, i think, than simply taking some apps that are bad actors in use them for bad purposes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. exemption andcy

safety exceptions are not limited to parents. i just wanted you to know that. thingsalk about a couple . both you and dr. atkinson referred to digital advertising alliance self-regulatory program for marketing as a model program. just so i'm clear, you issue this code in july 2013 but you are not enforcing it? code was issued in july 2013. there had to be several operational steps put into place before it can become operational. there had tos that be a standardized way for companies to display notice to consumers. that happened in april. the next step is to have a nap

so they can express their choices -- the next up is to have an app. choice,consumer makes a we want to make sure the choice is honored and that companies are held to honoring that choice. >> so it's a model program in theory. top version has been around for almost three and a half years. we have a great pedigree to show that in fact we do put the tools to market that we say we will. >> can i ask ms. greenberg about what your opinion is of the reality you see in best actresses? practices? >> it seems the code is coming late in the game to us. players like the direct marketing association put codes in place years ago.

with all due respect, we've looked at the code and it is full of holes. we would argue that it feels may bepr gesture and it driven in fact by the introduction of this legislation. that thelso take issue idea that self-regulation is working. i think there is monumental evidence that self-regulation is not working. from theeard witnesses ftc and the gao say as much. the wall street journal did an article that you mentioned with 101 apps being tested and 47 of them disclosed users location to a third-party. we very much need this bill

because self-regulation is not protecting consumers. >> there is the point that the ranking member made. has there been any evidence of harm? i think most americans believe that they have some right to privacy. do you think there is harm that individuals can feel if their privacy is not being protected? >> the notion that there is no real harm from tracking and using location data for consumers really strikes in the heart of our notions of consumer protection and the idea that privacy is a bedrock american principal. justices of the supreme court, mayor, haved soto mayo articulated that it is a

right. the vast majority do care about their location data not being shared without the consent and do want to know where that location data, to whom that location data is being shared and for what purpose. i think that flies in the face of what we know about how consumers feel about their privacy. like last year, your organization posted a blog post about my location bill. "the evidence for the use of stalking apps is somewhat thin." dr. atkinson, i can understand might economic think tank think that but i'm curious what people in the field who have actually seen this. detective hill, are stalking app s common or is the prevalence of the evidence somewhat thin? 220%.has increased

we are finding more and more that these do exist. >> one week does not go by where the national office was not set up for direct services but we get calls every single week from survivors who were trying to figure out if the gps devices on the car, the phone, and app. we just don't have enough effective hills -- detective hills out there to have things examined. >> i think after atkinson has stated his general approval of piece of thispp so i don't want to send that wrong message. just in the execution of it in -- i go to you worth, thatsouth

people have a reminder that this is happening. dr. atkinson talked about being able to suppress it. >> it is vital. the behavior is not new. there is general support around helping vic dumbs. offenders will do anything they can to control their victims. they would look at the odometer when the vic and went to the grocery store to see if she stopped to pick up a prescription because it was outside of the bounds of what she was allowed to do that day. there are crazy amounts of control. some offenders will tell the vic m, i am putting this on your phone and i will be tracking you. it's there and she comes to file a report or a local advocate to talk about a protection order, she can accidentally let the battery run down, but if she does not know it was on the phone because the offender did not tell her, there is no arrow on the top, they

cannot do anything to stay safe. resources.s to the someone who feels like they are that itapped saying must be in this thing. what happens when they go to a police station routinely? don't have the tools to look at it or they may only have one tool to look at it and don't see anything after a quick look and send the victim on the way which can be very frustrating. >> this is why we need and the bill gets resources to be able and get exactly with the victims need. >> absolutely. >> i'm out of time. ranking member? is something i've been working on for a long time and you are just the ranking member. [laughter] the portions of the bill that

deal with stalking, i applaud the chairman for his dedication on this and those that testified, groups and organizations whoever on this for a long time, i do think we definitely need action in those areas. the bill thats of we don't necessarily stifle innovation that can help with some of the same areas we are talking about. i think concerns have been raised about this legislation that may require notice be provided and consent be obtained . the family tablet, gps and the car, is there a concern among some members of your that notification may be given to those who use the same device?

>> i can speak to but the program code is. if you are transferring location , you have to get consent. you have to get it download or on install. i would like to take this step address a point that ms. greenberg made. mentioning both participants in the development of our code. it will be enforceable later on this year. our program has announced more than 30 public actions against participants and nonparticipants alike. that is not pr. it's not an easy discussion to have that a company is somehow noncompliant with our program.

this is the mission we've set out to do. divertnt to transparency, control, and accountability. this is the program that we have and we think it serves industry and consumers well. >> to describe the program you to give some discipline about what you are talking about, you have given consent for investigation. how many did you say? been 33 public compliance actions. i think the number is in the 60-70 individual companies named in there. of those, we get compliance eventually but one did get referred to a federal authority. for me and iit

really appreciate this hearing. thank you for your testimony, everyone. >> i would like to thank all the witnesses very quickly because i don't want to have a long back and forth. would you like to respond, ms. greenberg? that weto take a moment are arguing with the idea that they may have pursued investigation. it's the code itself that is weak. to getdoes not need permission if they don't share the data and they keep it to themselves. if it does share precise location with totally different companies, they still do not need to get permission to share. if they are doing so for market saying it is full of holes, that is what i am referring to. code does call for

consent when there is a transfer of location information. the reason we do that is we focus on when information is being transferred to unrelated apps or sites. that is the code. >> is her characterization of the code not accurate? >> we focus on the transfer of information to unrelated apps and sites. we want to make consumers aware of that and give them control. that's the part of the code that thehe essential piece of daa program. >> we may follow-up on this. i want to do this forever. to thank the want ranking member, senator flake. i want to say of the witnesses who appeared today.

detective hill took time out of his job to travel here and testify. we heard a lot of valuable testimony today. i think our bill will protect and i will think about today's testimony though. we will work to address that feedback to make any needed improvements in the bill between theand by the time it is books. thank you. i mean that sincerely. thing thatre's one there is absolutely no question about. shut down.ps must it is unacceptable in this day and age that companies are making money off of stalking and brazenly marketing themselves as talkers is equally on except the bulb of the laws have new polls -- marketing themselves as unacceptablequally . we have to stop these apps. i think there is agreement here.

we will hold the record open for one week for submission of questions to the witnesses and other materials. thank you. thank you. thank you again. this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] screeria -- nigeria. - nation's

communications networks and later chelsea clinton talking about the challenges of women today and the importance of female leaders. next, a discussion about the u.s. military presence in afghanistan, including the obama administration's recently announced plan to keep u.s. troops in the region past the 2014 withdrawal date. a former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan and a former defense department senior adviser are among the speakers. this is from the new america foundation. it's about an hour and a half.

>> this is being broadcast live so we're waiting for the right instance to start. okay. well, good morning, everyone. good morning and welcome to new america foundation. my name is omar samad. i'm senior central asia fellow here and former afghan diplomat. we're happy to have you this morning. we're talking about an issue this morning that's not only in the news, has been in the issue for a few more days, and may be in the news for a few more days depending on the cycles and other events happening. we are going to discuss afghanistan and the u.s. and the relationship between the two and the new announcement made by president obama as of a few days

ago, and then the announcement about the post-2014 engagement, engagement in afghanistan was somewhat superseded by the other news that came up, about the swap, the prisoner swap that took place. so we're going to see all of that in the context of bilateral relations and the way forward and we're very happy to have a formidable panel here of individuals who are not only experts but who have worked as practitioners as well to tell us and share it with us their views on this. knowing that there is news from afghanistan that keeps popping up, as of this morning's news that there was a suicide attack on one of the front runners, dr. an it dual -- abdullah, thankfully it failed, but left

several civilians dead and many injured. so i would like to start by introducing our panelests first, then we will have each one of them give their presentation for a few minutes. after which, we will have an opportunity to have a little discussion amongst ourselves, if anyone needs -- feels the need to do so, before we turn it over to you and for questions and answers. please turn off your cell phones if you haven't already, and this is webcast live by new america and also by c span 1, i believe. so everything that you say is on the record. let me start here. on the right, with crisco len -- chris kolenda, he is a new

senior fellow at the center for new america security in washington. until just a few days ago, you were just telling me, he served as a senior adviser on afghanistan and pakistan to the department of defense and the department of defense senior leadership, and he has had four tours in afghanistan, if i'm not mistaken. he's the editor and co-author of a book called "leadership," the warriors art," which has appeared on the professional reading list. he also has a book, the counterinsurgency challenge which some of you may have heard about. then we have clare lockhart. many of you who are familiar with clare who has dealt with afghanistan issues for many years. she is currently the director and co-founder of the institute for state effectiveness which

also works to support the emergence of the central government functions in ways that are transparent and accountable. she's also the director of the aspen institute which works to create opportunities and create jobs. she coauthored this well-known book, fixing failed states, a framework for rebuilding a fractured world with one of the two leading presidential contenders and has written numerous articles on various issues dealing with development, economics, law, and others. last but not least, ambassador ronald new neumann who is currently the president of american academy of diplomacy. formerly was a former deputy

secretary of state. then as the u.s. embassy's principal liaison with the multinational command. an important job. he is also the author of the other war, winning and losing in afghanistan. he visits afghanistan regularly, knows all the players and has been a follower of the issue for many years as was his father, former ambassador robert neumann who served in afghanistan in 1960s 70s, so with that, i would like to start with chris. chris, with your experience dealing with the dod and on

security issues and with the recent announcement by president obama that the u.s. post 2014 has a two-year plan that calls for 9,800 forces, a mixture of trainers, educators, and maybe anti-terrorism forces, that will be joined by some nato forces, and whose job is to help the afghans and also do some counterterrorism work. tell us if in your view this new policy is a solid one, doable, and what do you think will be the end result by the end of 2016. >> thank you very much for your kind introduction and question and i also want to thank the new america foundation and my colleagues whom i've known for several years, clare and

lockhart and ron neumann. today is the 70th anniversary of d-day and yeah, we remember the d-day veterans today and what they sacrificed, and what they did to make that effort, you know, that fight for freedom a success, and an interesting question is how will -- how will we, how will the afghan government, how will all of the actors in this particular conflict be remembered 70 years later. did we do everything reasonably possible on all sides of this conflict for a successful and a peaceful outcome? i think it will be a very interesting question for us. as we reflect on d-day today. certainly the 2009 diplomatic, political and military surge provided an opportunity for successful outcome in afghanistan and i think there is a reasonable chance of success in afghanistan.

i would say that with respect to to your question, the troop decision, i would give it two cheers. i'm not sure yet. time will tell whether it deserves three cheers or not. on the positive side of the ledger, it does buy time and space for the afghans -- afghan national security force maturity model to continue to grow and develop, but the security efforts are necessary but they are not sufficient for success, and the security efforts alone will eventually run into a glass ceiling of political dysfunction, violent contest for power and external and regional either neglect or malignant activity that will undermine prospects for success. the political efforts have to come on line and have to work in concert toward a sustainable

solution in afghanistan. the taliban are unlikely to overthrow the afghan government any time soon militarily. they are not strong enough. the afghan government is unlikely to force the taliban to surrender any time within the next couple of years. so quite frankly the biggest threats to the afghan government and the stability to afghanistan in the near tarym are probably not the taliban but more likely a political or fiscal crisis that unravels the government and plunges afghanistan into chaos. there is serious concern without needed emphasis on the political and diplomatic lines of effort that we've sort of postponed the day of reckoning, you get a new perfect storm as troops withdrawal down to zero and potential donor fatigue kicks in where donors are unwilling to

bank roll of what they may see as a conflict without end in afghanistan. that's the very difficult scenario i think coming forward. and certainly in that sort of -- that sort of downside scenario, al qaeda is the biggest winner in it. al qaeda is the winner in a perpetual conflict scenario, it allows them time and space to be able to come back into afghanistan and come back into sanctuary, and quite frankly al qaeda's biggest nightmare is a taliban that distances itself from al qaeda. i think the key counterterrorism strategy is, as you asked, is certainly pressure on the networks through, you know, through the -- all of the, you know, kinetic efforts so to speak as well as the intelligence efforts but the political and diplomatic efforts

are going to be the decisive ones in preventing al qaeda from coming back into afghanistan. so afghanistan right now, it's sort or the of the prisoners dilemma, where they recognize the efforts of peace and stability, but they don't trust each other. you get this sort of status quo that if not broken on the political and diplomatic side could lead to the downside as i mentioned. i said success is entirely possible. i absolutely believe that. i think there are five keys to a successful outcome that have come to fruition, will lead to a peaceful and stable afghanistan long term. the first one is the afghan national security force battlefield performance. there's no good solution in afghanistan, no positive outcome without the afghan national security forces being strong, confident, capable, and able to preserve the gains that have been made over the last 13

years. and there are also battlefield performance is critical in convincing the taliban that military victory by them is unlikely and in order to avoid perpetual conflict they are going to have to come into a peace process so the ansf provides -- afghan national security forces can provide the political and diplomatic space for a successful outcome. second is the political transition which you mentioned. the political transition has three components. the first one is the election. we're going to have a second round here in just over a week that will determine the presidency. the second part of the political transition after the election will be the peaceful transfer of power. the first peaceful democratic transfer of power in afghan history which i think is an extraordinary achievement and extraordinary credit quite

frankly to president car -- karzai to the afghan people. and third the economic reforms that pill wut afghanistan on a better trajectory. will the next afghan president have the will to do that i think is an important question. the third key to success is regional diplomacy, to come together to assist in cooperation, creating incentives for stability. that is going to have to happen. regional actors and international actors are going to have to place stability in afghanistan a higher priority than some of their interests and priorities that may be trending toward instability. number four is a peace process and i think there has to be progress toward a peace process in the 2015-2016 process, which

enable -- stability in afghanistan is sort of a manageable risk rather than an uncertain gamble. after 35-plus years of conflict and all the afghan people have gone through, peace process is very difficult to imagine, very emotional. we've just gone through in the u.s. this controversy over the bergdahl, you know, bowe bergdahl prisoner exchange and all the anxiety that occurred in america. magnify that many times over and you can maybe get a sense of anxieties and the emotions that go with a peace process or a potential peace process in afghanistan. you know, after, you know, a taliban regime, you know, that was cruel, misoginistic, that

will be tremendously difficult, but, you know, very necessary for afghans to come together and determine a peaceful political future and only afghans can do that. and then finally the economic -- progress toward greater economic self-reliance, right now afghanistan relies on an extraordinary amount of investment from the international community. that will require infrastructure development, economic development, as well as ideally the conditions under which defense spending can, you know, can reduce substantially. i would say finally afghanistan has a real opportunity to succeed. i was just in afghanistan a couple of weeks ago and i was

visiting an adult women's literacy center and 18 to 25-year-old women who would never had the opportunity under the taliban to finish high school but there they were and all of them have been affected by this conflict. they have lost loved ones, refugees. they know people who have been wounded and kill and they are all in class and they want to complete their education. their teachers haven't been paid, they are in broken desks, but all of them are passionate about what they are doing and their dreams and aspirations, i want to be an engineer, into be a doctor, i want to be a lawyer, and when -- i want to be a teacher, and you look at all of those, when you put all of those together, for them, those dreams and aspirations are not about making money, but it was about fixing what they think -- what they perceive to be the ills of afghan society. so i certainly hope for their case and the case of the afghan

people that we collectively, afghan's international community alike will do what is necessary for a successful and stable outcome in afghanistan and 70 years hence, we will be remembered positively for that. >> thank you, chris. clare, given the new timetable announcement by president obama, and also a timetable expected by nato soon, and given the numbers and given the resources per, let's say, chicago and per tokyo, two international conferences that came up with some figures on what it might cost to support afghanistan beyond 2014, you -- not only as an expert in state building, but also i might say even as a

member of this organization which is co-sponsoring this event as well, the alliance in support of the afghan people -- when you go to policy makers, when you go to legislaturers today, what would you tell them in terms of what chris said, what defines success and what defines failure, what would you tell them today given the new timetable, given the new conditions, and given what is happening in afghanistan and what the u.s. has done and will be doing? >> certainly. i think chris has described the factors that will contribute to success extremely well. as we know many of the headlines in the media focus on the risks and threats and the negative, i think that that's obscured a picture of real hope and possibility and opportunity and most of all because there's a new generation who i think all of you know welcoming of age who

want nothing more than peace and stability and are putting themselves at the forefront of the change and taking enormous risk themselves to see it become real. yes, i'm a member of of an organization which is devoted to this mission to rebalance the narrative and come up with a much more nuanced understanding. and try promote a more balanced understanding of what's happening. now, i would very much agree actually that the priority for many, if not most afghan citizens is security. i remember very early in my time in afghanistan somebody said look if i can't walk to buy bread at the end of the street, if the female members of my family can't go to their jobs and if i can't walk my children to school, none of these things, economic opportunity, food, even food, and education matter if the basic security isn't there.

he said if i'm aprayed of being shot in the back of the head, none of the rest of it matters. i think this is something left-right consensus even in this country, security is a good, not a bad. security matters. and now that the timetable is faster than some had understood or perhaps hope, this is going to put more imperative on the nsf and their performance, the promises that were made at lisbon and chicago for support for the ansf for the years to come becomes absolutely foundational. having said that, if you support a security force alone, that can lead to other sorts of problems. it cannot be created by suppression. so this does put pressure on the other elements, the ones that chris has outlined, the

diplomatic, the economic, the state building, the political functions. and in that area, i think this is really actually for afghans to define and afghans to determine. we hear a lot about afghan sovereignty. the afghans have both the right but also the responsibility to lead their country, and i think that perhaps -- as there will be a new president in place in the coming months, and it's going to be for that that president and their government to determine the right mix of policies that will lead to stability in the political and economic and governance spheres, but that said international assistance is going to continue to be important as a bridge to that time in the future when the country can raise its own revenue. so i've spent a little bit of time reflecting on what i think is important here. i think there are four factors and perhaps the most important is actually the economic one. it's the one that gets short shrift. there's a lot of focus on security and transition to a new

government, but the one that doesn't get as much focus is the economic condition and the sooner that afghanistan can raise its own revenue to meet its own costs of security and governance and social programs, the sooner that international taxpayers won't be call upon to meet that fiscal gap. as we know, there's been an economy that's been heavily based on aid as well as illicit economy, particularly narcotics over the last decade and the questions of transition from an aid-based economy to a productive economy is absolutely essential. afghanistan does have tremendous potential. it is landlocked. that puts it at something of a disadvantage but the assets that it has in terms of this very capable young generation, young population, know the minerals are not a magic bullet, know they are not going to providing the revenue in two or three

years, particularly in the oil and gas finds, other countries in the rooj are interested in buying that but there's also a domestic market within afghanistan. one of the most critical constraints to people's lives is the power situation, but afghanistan has the gas that can provide the power. so the question of how does afghanistan increase its revenue tremendously important? it has the assets. it has the capabilities. there's also a lot of revenue in the country that isn't being captured to continuing to work on reform of customs, like with its neighbor pakistan which has one of the lowest tax collection rates in the world, afghanistan actually has a higher percent amg but continuing to work in closing that revenue gap essential and of course as we hear from afghan citizens across the country, beyond security what do this they want is job? what are going to be the engines

of job creation? it's going to be ago gri culture. secondary is the viability of the state, beyond the security function. the afghan government has two national security programs, there needs to be some sort of a sense of prioritization, what are the five or six key functions. as we look at the perspective of a citizen of a rural area it's the very basic services anywhere in the world, basic education, basic health care, some electricity, access rural roads, and water sanitation so really focusing on the things that matter to citizens i think is going to be important. next area is keeping open the space for civil societies. so the work on human rights, on democracy, on women's rights, absolutely foundational and when we we look as what has really worked, the shift in attitudes

the space for the young generation, keeping vigilant, not letting that space close, but the support, back breaking work is internally, it's the young people who lead organizations in the country that's the most important and sometimes it's just moral support rather than financial support that they ask for, and then the final area, this question of regional cooperation and some of that regional cooperation is on security and political issues but tremendous opportunities in the economic area. there's been a lot of work done on this recently, the administration has worked on the launch of the silk road. really important work. energy, a lot of work has been on trade and transportation but the question of energy, the access of south asia to the gas and the hydroelectric power in central asia that can help solve south asia's energy problems. after france and germany

cooperated on coal and steel, what's the coal and steel of the region? it's the next president to form the policies in these areas and the worst that international partners can do is to prejudge that. they will need time and space to formulate them. there will be differences. whoever wins the presidency, what types of policies and management capabilities they will bring to bear but very important in coming back to your question, what to tell -- when one would say to decision makers and legislation ters in this gas, just tremendously important that afghanistan can work but maintaining the right commitment, certainly in the security area, but in the nonsecurity areas, to bridge that fiscal gap and provide the type of support that the afghans truly want and need, and we hear from others from all the things that don't work, there are cases of waste and fraud and

inefficiency but this has obscured the picture of what has worked. my colleagues are undertaking a study at the moment to take a look what does work and why. there are a number of things that have worked and it's i am pirtive to learn what is worked. that the support could be priority sized for the right areas and i think in essence, the afghan reconstruction trust fund, maintaining that budget support so salaries get paid and operations and maintenance have been provided, so all things that have been built over the last decade. also the larm scale programs have fairly low overheads, but reach millions of people. the national health program, and there are a few other programs like that that have the track record, have been evaluated as working very well, and i think

are worth maintaining a commitment to. >> thank you, clare. ron, we've covered a lot of ground between clare and chris, but not enough probably on the diplomatic side, and on the regional and strategic side. so as a ex-diplomat, u.s. diplomat in western afghanistan and troubled regions, with this noux, the recent announcement, what do you think is the message that is being conveyed or how is it perceived by countries in the region and beyondannouncement, announcement, what do you think is the message that is being conveyed or how is it perceived by countries in the region and beyond and to what extent do you think this is going to make a difference in their calculation on afghanistan, so on and soing for, knowing that afghanistan is situated in a pretty pivotal part of the world. >> well, chris gave the policy

two years, i think i would give it one cheer and one groan because the policy is in fact contradick tory and that sends a contradict tory message to afghans and its people. afghanistan is a really complex situation. it's a place that has so many moving pieces, if you have a really strong view, you can always find the places that support your view. if you have a view that's completely opposite, you can do exactly the same thing, but it is occasionally useful to focus on some of the big picture things. when you look at the election, which first was secured by afghan forces for 100,000 less foreign troops than there were in afghanistan at the last election. that is a success. it's not the end. it doesn't prove all will be

well, but it's a success. the election was not just better than the last election. think about the region in which this is taking place. pakistan has a recent election and elects a civilian government that is denied power by the military. you can fairly say in that region that from the northern border of india to the western border of russia, this is the most democratic spot in the region. now you can get a little carried away with that, i agree, but it's still an important realization when you think of where afghanistan is situated. peaceful. to come to our policy, it is contradick tory, the decision on troops for the next year, i believe, is a good decision. the rapid reduction in half, means people are going to deploy to new locations with a view to

how quickly they have to redeploy to someplace else and the fact that you put such hard time limits on sends a contradick tory message that questions whether performance matters because you are going to leave anyway. that message is contradict tory and it believes the picture cloudy for the afghans. there's another piece to the decision as well as the timeline, that is the decision to fold everything under the embassy by the third year. i believe that is clearly a mistake. that was a model which was used in iraq. it did not work well in iraq. my colleague jim jeffrey who was ambassador there can wax quite eloquent on why it did not work. it's not that it kpt work in theory. it is that it allows all sorts of bureaucratic stove pipes and habits in the u.s. government to snap back into place when you don't have a military presence as a central organizing force.

and frankly, it's also a bit of a shell game because you can have a very large military presence under an embassy direction as we have say in saudi arabia where you have a two-star general in command of a military training mission and then a very large contractor presence with the saudi arabia national guard. it is a shell game but it is also one which plays to a model which has not work well in the past. if that model is going to work this time, then there needs to be some detailed examination of why it did not work well in iraq and what we're going to do to fix the things that didn't work and i know of no such planning at the moment. we have two years. somebody could actually get serious and do it, but it's not happening at the moment. that said, there is time for the after gans. there is time to build on the success they have had.

and as clare said keeping up the support is going to be hugely important. that's going to be harder when you don't have a u.s. military presence because that galvanizes congressional support but it can be done. so i think there's another piece of this, although we're talking today to a u.s. audience, and that is the responsibility that's going to have to be carried by the afghan government and people in a very difficult time and notwithstanding a difficult message. we have to manage our own expectations. the next afghan government is going to be a coalition, it's going to take power with a very diverse body of supporters. it doesn't mean you are going to get everything cleaned up quickly. in fact, it's unreasonable to ask that and if you expect that, you are setting yourself up for failure, but at the same time the next afghan government has to begin to take on the task of

more efficient government and better government, one that is seen by its own people as being less rapacious and therefore more able to rally support. it's going to have to do enough of that to justify support of its people and it's going to have to do enough of that that it continues to build a lesson for us, for the congress and for other foreign don'ters that this project is worthy of support because it can continue. it's just not milking the foreigners, i thil that will be particularly important for the army. it's not just promotion for merit and removing corruption. it is getting out those who are particularly inefficient but politically connected because changing that becomes a major piece of maintaining the loyalty of the force or risking the coup because of the loss of loyalty

of the force. so the next afghan government has to play a major role in its own salvation. scan -- this would seem to be obvious but it's not because afghans have lived for so many years in a world that is continually overturned by what foreigners do so there is a tendency instead of looking to what i want to do, this american tendency is to say what is your vision, the afghan tendency is what's the vision of the big foreigners because my vision is not going to matter very much if i don't know that. so this means that at a time when afghans need to understand their own responsibility, because they can really effect our policy, they can effect what the congress and the american people two years from now will be willing to do or what our next administration will do, but this is a hard realization for afghans themselves because of the context out of which they

come, and it is a hard realization when the american administration sends a mixed message that is very difficult to decipher, but it is still going to be one. most important pieces, one hand that we are willing to continue to support progress and that we're willing to recognize if there's a degree of success and on the other hand an afghan willness to play for a somewhat longer tour. to step up to their own responsibilities for effectiveness and improvement without having excessive expectations of how fast that can go. >> good, thank you so much. i would like to ask all three of you a question that comes up occasionally, but doesn't have a very precise answer because it's a complex sort of question.

depending on how you conduct polls and how you pose questions, depending on how you interpret answers, why is it the u.s. public and even to some extent, some people in congress, do not fully grasp what has and is happening in afghanistan and what has and what is the u.s. doing in afghanistan. can you each one give me a short answer that might help us -- >> we'll each give you long answers. >> make it somewhat short. >> i'll start, one. >> there's several different reasons. first, afghanistan is just enormously complex. people want a short strategic answer and province to province, sometimes district to district, things are enormously difficult and different, in fact they resist that kind of simplification. secondly the u.s. government has

done an absolutely rotten job of providing a steady measure of reporting. we have done spin as opposed to fa fact. that makes people subject -- first, it just builds on the cynicism that has been there since vietnam but secondly it also makes people revert back to anecdotal news reporting for a basis of understanding. first of all, with news, if it bleeds, it leads, so their tendency is to the bad reporting and secondly, every country reports primarily on the areas where their troops are involved. the german press will report almost exclusively on northern afghanistan. the spanish and italian will focus on the west, the british focus only on heldman. the american press focuses on where our troops are. so you have lousy american

reporting, complex situation, fragmentary press and then you've been at it a long time and people are tired. you put those things together and you get a public perception that nothing is working. there is one more fact -- i went to high school in a school that had a problem with gangs. by the time i was in high school, the gangs had been cleaned up but i noticed that nobody understood that and it occurred something to me repeatedly in life, that reputation follows fact, where there's a lag of a couple of years or more and i think you have that in afghanistan too. so you had a picture that was very -- we were almost losing the war in 2009. can dal har was very close to falling, whether the taliban could have held it or not, the country was in terrible shape and it took a long time to put the troops in, big battles, so

reputation and fact trail way behind changes, and also good news isn't interesting. last year, there were huge numbers of stories when the marine went in. no afghans, terrible fighting. i was back there last year. there were 25,000 troops, people are talking about business, and find a press story about that, so the reputation lingers because nobody reports on change either. clare, given the time lines that we have, how do you resolve this? what do you do? >> i agree very much -- >> how do you fix it? >> i agree very much with the ambassador's analysis. i think for the first few years after 9/11, there was an attitude in the media that everything was wonderful and was great success of elections and so on.

and then the pendulum swung the other way. nothing works. the afghans don't work, very unbalanced picture and i've actually been talking to some of the editors of newspapers and channels about this, and saying, look, you are only reporting on the negative. okay, we agree. let's work on this. but they admit it's very hard because the defense editors and the foreign editors will report on the bombs and the corruption and the negative, and not so interested in you have to get it into the business pages of the minerals and the other stories. the guys who run a motorcycle factory in iraq who were running espionage in china. i spoke to one of the journalist, he said look, i can't find a single project that worked. i think he probably could if he looked a bit further but yet the

country has been transformed because he's been back to those part of the countries, it did work, the country has transformed. we have not told the story. i think we do need to sit down with editors and leaders in the journalism world and think about -- i think we have a serious structural problem here and it does need to be addressed. and part of it as you say is the political leadership, to tell the story to level properly with the american people that there is a different story here but i do think that the media does also have a responsibility to find ways to present a more balanced picture. >> chris, aside from the media, and others in government role, let's take the flipside of the taliban. very unsavory group of people back in the 1990s and now the video that came out about the prisoner exchange or at least the release of bergdahl is going

viral, and giving an impression, creating an impression. you were in the defense department. how do you manage this? >> well, first of all, i would like to echo ron neumann and clare said about the narrative. it is hard to boil afghanistan down to, you know, bullet points or, you know, talking points that are easily sort of painting, you know, a sort of simple narrative or a simple solution set. it just doesn't lend itself to that, and it is an extraordinarily complex environment when you have 35-plus years of conflict and whether it's the -- whether it was the war against the soviets or the civil war, then the

taliban, and now the last 13 years, it has created a degree of complexity. it's really hard for people to understand. i've been dealing with afghanistan for seven consecutive years now and every time i go back to afghanistan, you realize how much you truly just do not understand. and when you look at the taliban, it's -- it's interesting on the one hand, you know, there's -- this is part of the kplext, yeah, i mentioned the abhorrent nature of their rule. i've been fire fights with the taliban. i've certainly -- i have six good soldiers of mine were kill by the taliban and over 50 wounded. so there's a lot of scar tissue there. by the same tone, you look at

statements. they are trying to portray themselves a taliban 2.0, we're not like the people that ruled in the 1990s and they are starting to socialize messages about peace and about, you know, anti-corruption, about women's education and those sort of things. all very much designed, first of all, to appeal to the international community, and second of all, there's a recognition they can't turn back the clock and they have got to more in step with the afghan poem if they are ever going to try to gain any sort of support. now whether any of these mexings are credible or there is just pure cynicism for public consumption, we don't know. it's hard to tell and we won't know until it's tested over time. but adds to the complexity of this, the taliban is not the same as al qaeda. the al qaeda is an international

terrorist group bent on the destruction of america and the west. the afghan taliban had an ininjure -- insurgent group. two powerful organizations that ten to get couldn't flatd together. >> some people may argue with that. any points you would like to raise with each other before we go to the public, even though you all seem to be somewhat on the positive side, and and even more so than i am, as an afghan, but i think it's very good. i think it's very -- i think it's good to hear from people who follow the issue and know what the issues are. as an afghan, i think that you reflect to a large extent the feelings and thoughts that exist in afghanistan. so it's not just afghans talking amongst each other and wondering

why the u.s. is not getting it or why is it that they don't see that the glass is half full for example or life has changed for the better in afghanistan. so i think that those of us who have a greater affinity to this cause and to this issue, we sometimes are confused and i think that afghanistan and its people are going to hrough a a little bit of a confusion state right now it's important to bring some clarity to all of this. so having said this, i'm going to turn to our audience here, and ask people to please raise their hands, be recognized, introduce themselves, and pause and ask a question, even though everybody may have a lot to say or remarks to make, but please ask questions as succinctly as

possible. please wait for the microphone so we can capture everything. >> hi. i have a question about the prisoner exchange. i think i -- when i watched president obama's speech and then following that the prisoner exchange, i was hoping that after the elections in afghanistan, it was a great success, it was a great turnout. it was actually a message from the people of afghanistan that we are embracing democracy and it was a message that we don't want the taliban kind of government, and then i was hoping that our president would really encourage that message and say the government was going to stand by these values, the progress that afghan people have made. i work for a women's organization. we have put our the frontline. 600 afghans in my organization

are working on the ground every day and their life is in danger. and they keep going. this would be encouraged and i would know that the united and international community would standby us. though when i heard the message that afghanistan will never be a perfect place and it's not america's responsibility to make it one, it was a great disappointment for me, for the young afghan generation, for the women who have been fighting so hard, and the president is not here. ly i will ask you what is our president thinking saying that. with the prisoner exchange, following that, we have five top taliban. some very well connected with al qaeda are exchanged. they are in ka tar.

the plan to close down guantanamo bay eventually. what will happen to the prisoners there. we killed bin laden. are we releasing 5, 10, 20 to return back to afghanistan. our lives are in danger. >> let me address the first part to you, chris, because you just left -- >> that's right. >> please tell us, you know, the worry that exists within the afghan society, with women. is this sending the wrong message for the afghans or has it been misrepresented or misread? and then i'll turn to you, ron, about the second part in the peace process and what can you tell us about whether the release of five well-known

taliban is going to hinder or help the process. >> this entire event has generated so much anxiety and emotion on both sides of the ledger, and, you know, i think the -- in the big picture. the narrative that say, you know, the message that says, you know, we are committed to a successful afghanistan. we are committed to supporting the afghans in a, you know, peaceful, stable, prosperous future is -- that's one narrative. a very different narrative is we're committed to getting out of afghanistan. one narrative, i think, inspires a sense of commitment and a sense of confidence on the part of the people. the other narrative, you know, invokes fears of 1989 and

abandonment. an so that's, quite frankly, that's problematic. i think has increased the anxiety of afghans who, you know, have been through 35 years of conflict. i don't think, you know, want to, you know, want to see afghanistan go, you know, into chaos again. and want to see the gains preserved and want to see, you know, these opportunities particularly for afghan women and afghan children be sustained. so i think the, you know, the narrative on this is challenging. i'm not sure that the narrative on the, you know, this recent, you know, prisoner exchange is something that is going to be embraced as a model for the future in terms of how you describe things and set conditions for them. i think there are a lot of lessons to be learn on the administration's side on that. and it's, you know, there's no good solution to, how do i

get -- how i do get this individual back. there's a variety of solutions. least bad alternatives, and, you know, this was never going to be, i think, unless he was simply escaped or handed over, you know, this was just going to be a very difficult issue anyway. the prisoner exchange is going to be difficult anyway. >> ron, on the peace front? >> well, i don't think this release is going to have any particular bearing on the peace process. there was a point a year or more ago, as chris knows, when the prisoner exchange was to have been a precursor to a talk. that point has passed. it may come back again but it's not geared to the prisoners. if there's any message in the prisoner exchange, it suggests americans are cleaning up the

battle field they leave. it's not one i see sending any particular plus or minus. whether any of the individuals have a particular -- we don't know. but i don't see anything particular in this that is going to advance the peace process. i think it is sad that the media focus has been so much on the incident and so little on the success of the election and the fact that afghanistan still has a second round of elections to go. there's a huge story for the future of afghanistan in the second round of the election, and the security that will or will not obtain. that story is being largely ignored in the feeding frenzy over sergeant bergdahl. i'm going to talk about that in a second. i know, we're going get a question. i'm going get it out. it's not a story that covered any of the participants with

great glory. yes, there is a principle of bringing back our people, you know. i can remember helicopters flying into hot lz to take out bodies on the same principle in a slightly older war that i was a part of. the principle is not an end of the discussion. it's a beginning of a discussion about how much risk you take in order to bring about the result. how you mitigate the risk. part of mitigating the risk is what conditions you have, in this case, for holding these people. the white house has not been prepared to speak about that on the record. it leaves one slightly uncomfortable with how firm the conditions are. second issue is how much danger the people pose. there i would say the media has not covered itself with glory either. there's a good report from the afghan analyst network that tells you you do not have five

leading taliban war leaders. you have at least two that were purely administrative. one -- neither one of them terribly high. one person who was a mid-level intelligence commander, and two who were combatants one at the mid level. only one of whom is a senior. he has a potential for war crimes issues. which the media is paying no attention to at all. the portrayal of the people is generally messed up, and that suggests, also, the hyperventilation of the critics is obsessive to the issue. you have an individual and a price paid for the release do not merit the self-congratulation which has been in evidence. you have a threat, which is probably not terribly large but which we don't entirely

understand, and you have a criticism which seems to get ahead of the facts. i don't find much glory in any of that. >> why don't we come back to that. >> a couple of comments. i think one very much to agree with you. i think this idea that afghanistan -- some people are trying to make it to a perfect place. nobody ever suggested that, and i don't think everything should prevent the citizens for afghanistan to create the kind of afghanistan they want. we all know that the kind of transformation that countries do undertake does take 20 to 30 years. i think people are realistic about that. but the end goal is for afghans to determine. on the political process, i mean, i think this is from a comparative perspective. i see it as we look at different peace deals and processes around the world. one danger they fall into is 20 guys around the table and a deal and the hollywood and end and

peace is going to break out. i think come back to the theme we have been addressing that there's a lot more complexity really warrants a sort of look again. suddenly the popular understanding how peace and every afghan i've spoken to understands that complexity. but not always the media. there's a paper, "national dialogue." that a number of afghan leaders are discussing. it's available on the website and elsewhere. many leaders have been talking about it to look at the different parts of the process. to look at the peace process rather than necessarily a peace deal with different elements to this. of course, one is how afghanistan and pakistan reach a way, at least, of coexistence. some people have been talking about them ultimately having a special relationship. as a part of the peace process that is the most important, that's probably it. then there's a question of many parts and groups within the country feeling excluded from power or badly treated. and the question of how does one

address those grievances. those are people in many different part of the country. how are the grievance s addressed? another part is rather than looking at good guys and bad guys understanding that, you know, over the last 30 plus years of conflict there have been many actions taken that, you know, some people would say war crimes and the question of how the country deals with reck sell yags in a broader sense. how does the country come to terms with the past and agree to move forward, i think, is something that still to be worked out. understanding it's about different groups within the country and how do they agree to govern together in the same entity. i think, and i think it looks like from each of the president's candidates platforms each would look toward a reframing of the road to peace. >> all right.