people would be surprised -- if you go back 20 years, that they would accept. but people who want to participate in it can. with that, i would like to move on to the first panel. thank you very much for the opportunity for speaking. . or the information sheet up front about how to get connected to the wifi.

i would like to thank everyone for coming. i would like to thank professor rosen. he is one of the leading experts in piracy. he is the legal affairs editor at the "new republic" and he is a senior fellow. we are happy to have him here for the issues as we are ready to explore this moratorium. we are also happy to introduce the other panelists. we see the professor -- the director of the consumer federation. we have jim harper of the cato institute. we have the director for technology. we have the microsoft corp.

director, the director of policy at intel. richard prucell of the policy group. he could not make it here, and we apologize. we have a couple of words that we would like to talk about from the first panel, about how the panel is likely to go. there have been many dramatic changes to this lifestyle. there are tremendous assets, with the internet expanding with more access and content, more information and communication and services. at the same time, consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about technology -- how technology may be used to get information about online behavior. to segment them with the special categories based on this

activity, and using them in ways that they do not know about or may not understand. they have been gathering information about consumer habits and interest in activities in the offline world. the surveys, the contests, and the information. this collection of all flight information is now being -- of offline information is now being part of the online information. web sites offering web sites for specific problems. reading habits and search queries. the opening panel on privacy is to explore this dramatically changing landscape, looking at the way that the information about consumers and their lives are gathered and analyzed. this is for marketing and other purposes. we will talk about the ways that

information may be compiled and use, and we will ask the analysts about the usage of information. we have more on how these great benefits and risks for consumers. rather the information of -- in these activities is subject to the existing rules and the loss. whether there is a limit to how long companies may maintain information and how they may use information. whether or not consumers are aware of the extent of the data collection. and whether they will exercise control over this. the format is a little bit different than usual. rather than having each panel have remarks, and the palace will have the opportunity to discuss these questions to

engage in a dialogue. we have staff members with index cards and if you have a question, please raise your hand if you have a question. and the web cast audience members may also submit their questions. professor rosen will be leading with the first scenario and he may also have some remarks. >> thank you so much. i am delighted that they have begun this roundtable series on restoring privacy and i am honored to be part of this. i was so happy that the chairman sited a man who was not only the patron saint of the privacy law, but also the ftc. he would be very interested in turning their attention to this subject.

we know that the new technology is supposed to privacy. they said that this was the kodak camera that made him concerned about what used to be whispered in the closets was now shouted from the rooftops. it was a different technology, mainly wiretapping, that made it possible to listen in. he predicted the creation of the internet, and that there would be a way to extract papers and secret desk drawers, and introduce this in court. this was remarkable. he was wanting to include a reference to a new technology, mainly, television. he was persuaded to take this reference out by his friend who thought it would sound too much like science fiction?

this led to him to remark that he was a genius, but he was not friendly. in his defense, he said that the constitution should be translated for these new technologies to protect as much privacy in the age of wiretapping and electronic age as this had in the colonial era. he was also deeply sensitive to the role of government regulators. by bringing new constituencies to the table, labor and business and government, it was interesting that he hated the word consumers. a thoughtful balance between the competing interests could be struck. that is why i think that he would have approved of the efforts we have made here today. we are going to proceed by way of this scenario. the danger of privacy -- they

make this debate so relevant. i will begin with a scenario that many of you will recognize. and i will ask the panelists to talk about this. we will talk about the other scenarios. we released the text files for 650,000 users. we later apologized, saying this was an unauthorized move. we were hoping that this would benefit academic researchers. by linking this to a common identifier, the new york times and others were able to locate a georgia widow? frequently researched the medical elements of her friends. another user gained notoriety after searching for japanese child's life -- child slavery

and pornography. this led to the chairman of aol resigning. there was also a list of who was watching what on youtube. the judge asked for the internet protocol addresses of everyone who was watching this. in the face of privacy concerns, by, and google -- viacom and google came up with another plan. what i want to ask the panelists is, what concerns do we have that the searches will be given to the world. when i was talking about privacy, we were talking about my kolinsky -- monica lewinsky. she was worrying about the snippets of information that would define her to the world. the search terms, and youtube videos, they seem more brought in the ability -- they seem to

be more broad in the ability to judge as out of context. what do you think about these disclosures. >> what people are afraid of is the continuum of harm. this is starting with embarrassment, disclosure, perhaps to their own family about things that they have been searching for. people forget that we do not seem to have a computer that only belongs to us. there is a broad feeling of people who should be involved. people have concerns that they will be labeled or identified, and that this piece of information will be combined with the other data. when you talk about the search data, over time, i'll get back to this in a minute. i think that this is not the case. if you are talking about searching for information over time, you may be talking about

any other kind of surfing data. can you bring this back from another individual, this kind of data. can you get a sufficiently rich profile that would identify this person once you have this range of information -- identify this person? once you have this range of information, you have to find out, will the use this for insurance or credit for employment? will we share this with other people. one of my young researchers was going through all of the difference cookies. she was trying to find out how all of this connected together. she ran into a network, not one of them that was publicly spoken about. yahoo and google have treated

spaces to see what you are being searched against. most prominently, it said that they were searching medical marijuana and marijuana. this is for the individual that we are talking about, and 50% of the other things on that alleged profile. they did not make any sense. that is a single bit of information that is plainly connected to her cookies and this is very appalling. we want to know what is happening with this information. >> this is very helpful. you can actually be harmed by information that is judged out of context. are there other concerns? the right to read anonymously, mental privacy, and freedom of thought? >> it is very important to go back to the basics. privacy is a fundamental human right.

the ability to be anonymous and maintain your dignity. this is an important value in society which we are very happy to see that the trade commission has recognized. we're happy to see that they are reorienting towards privacy. when you think about the fact that most people believe that they are anonymous when they are doing things like searching, when you think about the fact that consumers should not have to give up their fundamental right to privacy in order to use these tools, it means that if people went to realize -- were to realize that their rights were being violated, this may have a chilling effect on the use of these tools for all kinds

of very valuable things. consumers should not be asked to make this choice. >> and this can bring harm to both the users and businesses who are using this technology. let's start to think about the potential users. can becoming more anonymous address these concerns, or the non-personal identification that is blurring. can digital footprints be reassembled? can you send us off with that? -- can you start us off with that? >> we can take personal information, that may not be very sensitive, and we can use this in an interesting way. we will identify the information with the passwords.

i do see more of this as an economic problem that a technical problem. if i can explain, this does not sound like it does in other cases, as the economics are facilitating every other discipline, including computer science. the policies of the restructuring in the last few years, with consumer science, has made enormous progress. we have a very good theory about when this can be shown to be anonymous, and whether they have the data. we have the conditions under which this can be proven to be anonymous. this can be a focus of the reality. they can often bypass this kind of constraint or condition. the creation of the model is not

considered. and the sophisticated data mining, and the incredible amount of self-revelation in blocks -- blogs makes it easy to bypass this protection. there are privacy laws that are over this but the only way that this happens in the world is that the rapid pace of technologies -- they may not be sure in any condition. economic problems are more costly and it reduces the incentive for another entity to try to decide what is being protected. privacy in technology is your best choice. they tried to allow certain information to be shared, and

they will stop to protect other data. i believe that we can use technology to meet the interests of both parties. >> richard prucell, how much faith they have in the anonymous? people want to let email only the red for a certain amount of time, and then this is inaccessible. is this the answer to the concerns about searches that are out of context? >> first of all, and anemone -- being anonymous is hard to define. we struggle with making a lot of assumptions. many of these words are words that are more subjective than object of. first of all -- objective.

first of all, we have to start thinking about the more difficult questions. how do we began to apply privacy rules 2 information that is perhaps not -- to information that is perhaps not in context? if this is indeed, the records that are difficult to identify an individual within can become identified if we apply the regulatory standards to those with a greater standard of care. that may be very helpful. there are researchers that believe that identifying the anonymous records is relatively easy today because of the identification process being so poor. and they can be improved. this becomes an economic model. how do you make this possible to really identify data, and what is the cost of obtaining that

level of difficulty and preventing any exposure? whether the time that will matter or expire, most of these can actually be overcome very easily. i have a trip to the access to my hard drive. you can use a screwdriver to get this out to bypass the encryption. there is a way around this. what i worry about is, how are we going to reasonably protect very sensitive information? let's go to health data. health record information. we depend, as citizens, on a very robust amount of research to help all of us to develop better health practices, and better medicines, and better treatments. much of this is based on the examination of patient health records, and other things that are anonymous. if we cannot achieve this, in

this space, we threaten the ability to advance the general health care understanding as well. this is a very serious problem that will have to be overcome. >> there are tremendous benefits to services offered by aol and google. how can these companies make use of this information, selling advertisements and avoid these different dangers? >> i wonder if you could talk us through these possible solutions. can this be retained for a certain amount of time, so this will be accessible if this is demanded? what is your view about a productive solution? >> i think that the answer is all of the above. the benefits of search technology are up -- are very enormous, and this is a very

important service. they collect and retain the search information to enable that service to work better. they will log in with extra security for this system, and they will analyze the information in order to improve the service itself and provide more relevant results. all those ultimately benefit the users of the search service, and as we spoke about, there are enormous privacy implications to this data. this can be very sensitive and among the most inner thoughts and when you bring us together over time, there is obviously a very important privacy implications. the way to deal with this and enable those benefits, as you minimize or address these risks, is to make a multifaceted approach. you have to do this from the design stage. when you are putting together a search service, you have to

think about privacy first. we have spoken about making things anonymous. this is very important. this is not a silver bullet but this is very important. there are many definitions out there and some of them are better than others. if you look at the aol search example, the way that the information was identified with the ability to connect the search queries over time, and if you put all this together on an individual, this was enough to identify the person. there were 650,000 users and the information has been there for three years. a handful of people have been identified as a result. this is a problem and we should do better. the method that we use on the search engine involves deleting the entire internet provider address, but all of the cross-

sections for the identifier. you break that link over time to reduce the likelihood of the information being identified. you have to have security across the system and transparency about how this is used. you have to retain limitations as well. the major search engines have adopted retention methods and other methods of making users anonymous. all of these search engines tried to address these problems. >> is there a time when these policies may become problematic from a business perspective? yahoo! and google only keep them for a short amount of time. what if the government was going to require purging information over a very short amount of time? is this economically feasible from a regulatory perspective?

>> this depends on how you phrase the question. the time can get to become incredibly short. this calls in the need to have these discussions, with the more detailed discussions on the individual issues. trying not to have regulatory requirements for certain times that would apply to a wide number of users. the number -- there is -- there are a number of companies that should be commended for what is in place. the question is, what kind of regulatory structure has been placed for the companies that are not doing this. in line with that, one thing that we have not spoken about connected to retention is minimizing the data. at the end of last year, the department of homeland security did something that was very

important. they were minimizing the data as part of their practices. this needs to include a collection of limitation and a use limitation, not only focusing on retaining things. what we have found is that we have wasted a tremendous amount of time in the last few years with arguments over what really qualifies as personal information, and what does not qualify as personal information. we have done that because the consequences of something falling into the category of personal information has been tremendously burdening in the regulatory structure. if we can focus on the information that is going to impact an individual, to their benefit or to their detriment, we will understand and get a structure in place where we can make certain that companies are appropriately minimizing the amount of information that they collect. and they will be handling what

they do collect. that is the direction that we need to go. >> the last question. harper, you know that brandice was afraid of regulation and a centralized government may exacerbate the problems that were introduced. is there anything that would be too onerous for the data retention policies. would this be placed by the government in response to the aol and youtube examples? >> thank you for that libertarian thought process. i prefer not to argue at a level that is back and forth, that too much regulation would be problematic. moving into an area where we do not know what the future will be for technology and business, this would be damaging.

everyone is recognizing this. what i am interested in is moving the conversation to another level. what do the consumers want? we're all very aware of these issues and the public, unfortunately, is not. we should let the social systems work and let advocacy work to draw out the real problems and then we should strike the balance. is this a big enough problem and should this be anonymous? but the companies challenge each other with their advocacy and the regulators. certainly, regulating to strengthening -- regulating to quickly, too early, we will have to define these problems. not just for the intellectuals in washington. we have the future of advancing

technology. >> thank you so much for the discussion. >> the second scenario involves two those situations in the social networking environment. in 2007, facebook introduced beacon, which was sending information about what people were purchasing online to other people's friends. one user was furious that his purchase of an engagement ring was given to his fiancee. after protests for thousands of feet -- from thousands of users, facebook has turned this off. some people define privacy as the ability to control how information is disclosed to other people. this may be argued that we can threaten that kind of control for -- that kind of control that

would inspire protests. another incident involved a 25- year-old single mother who was hoping to become an educator, but she was denied having an agreed by millersville university. she said she was denied this degree because of a photo on her myspace page showing her drinking with a caption, drug and pirate. -- drunken pirate. this shows the possibility that public information may affect the provision of benefits without our knowledge. social networking has become extremely popular and valuable to consumers. facebook has gone from 100 million users in august of 2008

to over 350 million as of this month. this provides other services with tremendous ways to connect and build communities. but are there concerns about the scope of disclosure,ñi and the usage of information that may not be anticipated or well understood by consumers, using those tools? david hoffman, do you have any ideas about the anticipated issues that have been presented? >> i am struck by a story that i heard from my colleague of mine, one of the most well-renowned experts in that protection. they took an entire day, going through the white board, to understand why the data was going from different situations. i think that we have got into a

time when this is a good thing. it is great that people are innovating and finding new ways to deal with businesses and services. we do not want to frustrate that. i do not think that we can reasonably expect that the individual will have the ability to understand this better than the world-renowned experts who are trying to figure this out. we have a foundation that we can bring on . -- we have a foundation that we can bring on this. we have the understanding about what a system of accountability would look like, so that the entity that the individual is engaging webb will take responsibility for how the information is going to be -- is engaging with will take responsibility for how the information is going to be taken.

you have to know that there are many uses for this data, and the transfer between different entities to make certain that the individual services are provided, such as shipping with products and going across national boundaries. >> you spoke about the difficulty that consumers have in understanding the scope of the information. we have to know if there are things that we can do to increase the transparency and make the flow of data, or at least the major aspects, more understandable to the consumers. do you have any comments on how that may work? >> i think that there have been green shoots in privacy- enhancing technology is dealing with transparency. google and yahoo! have very robust features that people can

look at to see the kind of information that has been collected, and the usage of that, to edit that kind of thing. privacy and technology, health, but we put some much information -- we put so much information into this and beat -- and not enough into the basic practices. we talked about the usage limitation for the retentions and the transparency. i think that if we would shift the focus of the policy, and this would include the ftc, i think it is very important for big companies to think about limitations. i also think that the policy framework needs to expand because i do not believe -- and

i am a great believer in privacy-enhancing technology. i do not believe that we will get to the position that simply making all this more transparent to consumers is going to fix everything. i think that's this is important -- i think that this is important, and we have to get more of this in the marketplace. but that is not the answer to all of this, by any means. >> in terms of the efforts that we were talking about earlier, the efforts made by google and yahoo! are very important. but it raises the question about the other activities in the marketplace. what about the company that exists that may not be engaged in creating effort similar to google or yahoo! do you have any view on that? what do we do with the other companies?

>> we can regulate them. >> regulate the hell out of them. [laughter] >> i have been doing this for a very long time, with major corporations. the federal trade commission was watching with some -- was watching for informed consent. if we have that, we would be much happier. but there are serious limitations because of the down flow. because of the issues that she has raised, there are serious concerns about how we can use notice and consent, and transparency, to gain informed consent. at the same time, it is my personal opinion that companies have been very lazy about doing much work to develop and educate the audience.

there has been very little expenditure by the major corporations, and very little collaboration between the commercial and public sector. they have not mounted a real public-education campaign about online behavior and advertising, the risk of exposure. most of the companies say that there are two things. this is expensive and i am not able to afford this. i have liability and cannot do that. i would rather pay the lawyer just to put up a very complicated privacy statement and i will be covered. but i am covered, this is insufficient. we have to encourage the companies to start taking on a more courageous role in not only educating the workforce, that

has only just begun in the recent few years. we must talk about the realistic use of the applications that they are putting forward on line. and spending the money on this. it would really work to do this. we will hear how this is beginning to take some traction in the marketplace. if it takes informed people an entire day to plot out how this may work, then how are we going to be able to, in a very short and limited time span, how can we communicate with the implications of that are going to be and the suggested actions that they will take? we have privacy by default with these comments, as well as privacy by design. this is very complicated.

money has to be spent, and time has to be dedicated. >> i want to give you a chance to comment as well, jim. and if any of you want to interject on the panel, just raise your name tag. alessandro, i will get to you in a moment. with these two scenarios i have played out, are they just two scenarios? are the larger concerns represented, and are their larger stories? how do we measure the significance of this issue? >> we have to talk about the role of trial and error, and discovering the problems that exist and how we will address them. these are two errors that taught

different communities different things. we all want to be the first at any meeting about privacy. you can identify the data, like with yahoo! we talk about how begin was working. the broader -- beacon was working. the broader lessons are moving out across the business community and the consuming community. they are helping to navigate the way forward. it is mistaken for us to -- as good as we are at this -- to be intellectual about what people want, and decide how to present the problems that are on these elaborate flow charts. there is a process of figuring this out. if we step back and we understand that trial and error is an important part of guiding us, this would be a great help.

we have to look to the consumers to decide what they want, rather than cutting short this process. >> you had a comment that you wanted to make? >> i want to have a slightly dissenting opinion on this. these are very good things and important things. i say this, knowing that education can work. [unintelligible] sometimes, education can help the consumers get close to the privacy preference. i see no control transparency as a necessary provision. there is a wealth of behavior is in the base showing the gaps

in what consumers want. and they will be easy to achieve with this state. this is first of all a problem with the isometric information. maybe we can work on the problem of education and transparency. there are other problems with simple transparency in education. this is a problem of being bound in our cognitive ability. and there are cognitive operations that affect decision making, and making people do things they later regret. this is often they're in the case of privacy. because the privacy is long- term. we do not fear the immediate loss. we usually have this later on in time. this has been proven again and

again by researchers. we are very bad at making decisions. the benefits are immediate, but the costs are much better in time. it seems that they are coming through in terms of the value, and the high-frequency policies. this is very high in value, and very dangerous. somebody may be arrested for a case of mistaken identity. in both cases, this is difficult to deal with because when there is a case of high vulnerability, with this system, [unintelligible] this may be even lower than this. the cost may be more. we understand this because we are not certain how the cost will relate overtime.

over a long amount of time, we can give you an example. smokers realize that smoking causes cancer. they know that the cigarette increases the probability of developing cancer. but the challenges that the next cigarette will be part of a longer chain of the cigarettes that you'll be smoking to the rest of your life. -- you will be smoking for the rest of your life. we are not moving to the next level, acting on that concern. >> i would like to let everybody jump in here. we are on a tight time frame, and we will move on to the next scenario. but if you find the opportunity to raise an idea in connection with the next scenario, please do this.

>> the third scenario is from the list brokers. imagine that you are suffering from depression. in the course of your research about depression, you look for the help that you need. and then you are given pictures on line, pressuring -- promising a cure for your mental health problem. there is a list that marketers can purchase to find people just like you. this is an actual description of the list. >> we have brought together this group of individuals with wide- ranging mental health issues. there may be a great burden on the individual, making them receptive to any campaign that may offer some assistance or release. depression is not the only category on the list. there is also anger, anti-social behavior, bipolarity, and

stress. imagine that you have a weight problem and purchase products targeted to obese people in the past. you may find a marketer that promises that this is a great prospects for other nutritional products. these weight-watching consumers will try anything. these are only two examples of theniche -- of the niche marketing. there are other categories that are available. it is easy to raise questions about this, but other benefits for this list? do people suffering from illnesses benefit from getting relevant information? why is this not a great thing? >> this is not a new concern. this concern has long existed with telemarketing, and mail

marketing. i think that the internet is making the concern greater because of the increased ability to gather and segment information about consumers. this is information that the consumers are not knowingly providing for that purpose. they are providing this for another purpose entirely. this can be used to take advantage of extremely vulnerable consumers. we have a category of information, information that is so sensitive that this should not be collected. this can be used for -- this should not be used for marketing purposes. if the consumer was looking for health-related information, they would get advice from the doctor and they would anonymously search the internet for that kind of information. i do not think that whatever the

benefits are of this marketing, whatever they may be, outweigh the privacy concerns that they are raising. and also the concerns for things like fraud and abuse of a vulnerable population. >> can you give an account of what the benefits may be? >> i can give you a suitable account. what this illustrates is that advertising is tacky, and advertising about advertising in super tacky. [laughter] we really should be careful about assuming the results. for a very long time, i have been a skeptic, or have tried to warn the community about advertising about medical conditions. think about diabetes. this is suffered by many people who are lower on the economic spectrum, who may not be good

about getting to their doctor on time or taking their medication. advertising may play a role in advising them about new treatment. this may be easier to take or more sheep. -- cheap. i would not be in the way of allowing the advertisers to reach these communities. these abuses are very obvious but when people fail to get a new medication because we decided that they should not get advertising, this is a silent harm that may be greater than the risks that we know about. >> lesley, the harms and benefits. the talk about the second approach, with particularly vulnerable consumers or categories of information, what is the cost of these benefits? >> we have to look at the sensitive information.

it is not good to look at the sensitive consumers. we are not making rules that we will impose on people. i agree that this should be banned altogether, but this is the kind of circumstance that you must have to have a serious, robust consent that is rarely provided. consumers often put a lot of information online about their health conditions. there is a segment of consumers and if you go to people like me on those sites, people who believe aggressively that it is important to share their information, i have been struck by some very interesting conversations from the privacy experts. there are some different ideas about this. i think that because there are people who want to share all of this information, publicly, that we should somehow -- you have to have a by neri choice here.

-- binary choice here. some kind of advertising may happen, but this has to be a very serious kind of consent. i was very skeptical about how you make this happen. i am worried because when you do this in certain circumstances, the lack of transparency about making a decision, if there is a particular place you get the offer or if you are comfortable hearing about health. people may be advertising and this may not be the kind of potential harm as the information being advertised over time. i have experience, with an ad served to me about a condition in my family that is not

diabetes, and not likely to show up. this was incredibly invasive. i did not feel like going to the advertisement rather than the medical literature that led to this. i did not think that this would add much. >> we can imagine that some kinds of marketing would promote a consumer backlash. let me ask michael, is there a standard that should apply to these businesses to a preventive -- to prevent niche marketing? >> some of the panel have already suggested this, with the different categories of different populations. there are simply responsible practices and irresponsible practices in the advertising space. we all should -- shook our

heads at the practices targetting vulnerable populations. we spoke about the restrictions on advertising to children because they are particularly vulnerable as potential consumers. and there are others as well. it is difficult to draw a line that says, this category of advertising should be off-limits for the reasons that people are talking about already. and there are the boehlert categories of people that should not be targeted. -- and there are the vulnerable categories of people that should not be targeted. you should make certain that they are not getting advertisements for alcohol or inappropriate products. this comes down to responsible practices against irresponsible practices. this is difficult to write down in rules and regulations. >> what is not on the table is

paternalism. this goes into the transparency debate that we were having. the man who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant believed that when consumers get information about the underwriting commissions by investment banks, they would protest to avoid financial chaos. in this context, do you believe, david hoffman, that consumers cannot be trusted to make certain kinds of choices and they should not be able to alienate the sensitive information? >> we should be very wary of saying they cannot be trusted. we should expect that they will be able to make those choices. we see this in a number of different situations. we avoid a system of trial and error to be out there. when you think about the prospective of a child, for instance, purchasing toys.

sometimes we allow parents to make decisions about children's toys. getting them some understanding about the age-appropriateness of the toy. we do not, as of yet, say that we will let the parents make a decision about the lead that will be in the toy. the decision may be based on cost or functionality. there is the concept of, there are irresponsible behaviors. it is not a leap to say that this should not be legal. how do you do that without capturing behaviors that are not irresponsible, or they may not be irresponsible over time because of changes in the environment. this is arguing for not just thinking about one regulatory process, but a process where you have different levels of regulation. we have had this for a very long time with the higher-level

principles. people get together for the individual situations. how do you realize these decisions? how you realize the priority is not one component of those principles, with certain technologies or certain ways of delivering this. how much should you have to rely on the other principals? >> we ask you to propose another model of regulation. is there any question about niche marketing? you can cut the knot for us. >> i think that what he has said are very well-said and well-taken. people will need to, first of all, those people who are collecting information have to have a clear guidance about sensitive data and the lack of

cohesiveness among multiple jurisdictions makes it difficult to understand what sensitive data is. this matters in a culturally- specific kind of area. there are some bass lines and we have to be more vocal and more specific, -- baselines and we have to be more vocal and more specific about what sensitive the information is and how this needs to be treated. and read-using the data is another thing that -- reusing the data is another thing that we are speaking about. this should be off the table. we can start the real argument once this is gone. >> for the fourth scenario? >> is it possible to say one thing?

>> absolutely. >> we are talking about data brokers. because there is no free credit report and constrictions on what can be collected and who will have access to this, and for what purpose, this places all the information that is collected about consumers, but especially sensitive information, in a perilous position. >> i wanted to interject before this scenario with one question that we have gotten. the question is, can the retention work if we maintain the copies and the archives of information, with an audit trail for business decisions? and to recover deleted data. i wonder if david or michael can address, as the two industry representatives, parts of this question?

>> the policies that are adopted around retaining data may work and they do work. companies like my own and others have adopted limitations in some scenarios you have to have the trail of data. we can use this for improving products and services, but within each scenario, it is rare that you need to keep the information forever. you look at the needs of the business, and the ways that you can minimize the data, and protect privacy as you are retaining this. and you do not retain this any longer than you need to. >> this is a risk assessment process? >> it is important to think about because we also need to look very carefully at any of

the requirements that force companies to retain data, any longer than the company would normally need to to accomplish what they're trying to do. to allow companies to be able to retain the data for a short period of time, and to minimize the collection to begin with, -- so that they do not even have the information. this is not an issue of secondary use. we all have received a number of security breach notifications every year. having this creates an opportunity for there to be a breach over time. >> i will get into another scenario, which we started to talk about. you were saying something that was addressing this. this involves the credit content. you charge something in a

store, and then you call the credit card company to dispute the charge. perhaps something that you purchased was defective. but the merchant would not agree with you and would not give you a refund. he added you to badcustomer.com. . >> there are lots of secret

lists as well. there is a list maintained by long distance telephone companies of deadbeat customers. there are lists of people who have abused the bank accounts, and in many cases they are not covered by credit report act requirements, so not only is there limits to their collection of that information and who can access and how it can be used, but there is no right of consumers to access that information, to correct it, to delete it. i would say this is a right that should apply to market lists as well as bad customer lists. it is important for us to decide whether it is fair to have these lists and if is to

give them to consumers to protect them. >> we talked about vulnerable types of consumers. does this type of list create concerns about potential socio- economic distinctions being made with certain consumers, whether they are entitled to specific benefits or services? >> i would love to answer that. anytime you can separate the people of their characteristics, you can make decisions about them for a variety of criteria based on all sorts of criteria that we in our public policy deemed to be undesirable, making

decisions about people, for instance, according to their race or ethnicity or gender, but because this is done invisibly, if you get offered a certain price that is different from someone or terms that are less advantageous, unlike when a notice custody delivered to you because of a particular thing, you do not know that. there is no way for you to know it, and the populations we are concerned about are the least likely to be able to do anything about it. >> did you want to add something? >> the key has got to be accessed rights, and i do not

think this is aimed at particular populations. obviously agree but we need a baseline law, and a key part test to beef access and correction, and that has to apply to everyone. that is the key element. you will always had of people more able or less able to exercise those rights, but you have to have them as a baseline, and you have companies make it easier and better, and we expected to know more than we do. i think it does not. we are all having conversation with companies that have fairly transferred crosses.

-- transparent processes we do not have the tools to truly investigate. i suppose you have subpoena power and ought to use it more often, but on questions about what is the other -- what is this data being used for, i think is of to the ftc to use whatever we have and use public policy. we talk about facebook compared to traditional long-term decision to refuse privacy, so we have a missing piece, and the missing pieces understanding the practice. it is not just consumers. i do not know that any of us do three of the year driving this 5

what is revealed accidently. we have to come up with another way if we're going to develop whether it is law. we have to give a different information base which we do not have. >> i think the rest of the program will address some of the issues you have discussed. i want to give you a chance to comment. >> it is easy to argue we should do away with trial and error learning, but it is pretty un- soho. we can do away with a lot of benefit. >> i just thing the best way we should do this is trial and error. let's keep talking. >> i was interested in making a brief comment.

the fair credit reporting act pre-empted state tort law as to credit bureaus and prevents people from suing on the basis of defamation or interference with prospective economic damage. over the past 30 years this could have done quite a bit too turned the credit industry and a more favorable way. >>pre-emption. >> deal. >> let's move to the next scenario >> would have to do with mobile technologies.

when they send targeted ads, they can track your physical locations and theme and face on your recent past have it. when you walked us mcdonald's you might receive ads for salads instead of hamburgers, or you might receive distressing and formed big macs. imagine you have activated your credit cards. an anonymous message in the hopes that your feeling generous. i want to us with the benefit of these five might be. his form of social networking was to invite people of to the

chilly connecticut avenue apartment, and officials would sit with him and discuss athenian democracy the you want to give a sense of what this might be hamas >> no, i want to raise additional concern that has not been discussed yet today fear rick of you refer to it obliquely in your opening, so let's pull back the curtain. i think richard smith did a good job pulling back the curtain most of the way, of life: 5 rest of the way and discuss government access to this data -- but let's pull it back the rest of the way and discuss government access to this data. they are using it to go after paying patients and doctors who prescribe.

the cloud is a huge repository of data that they are beginning to discover for their purposes, and i think it is very important not to think this is a problem between corporations and consumers but between citizens and governments. now there is an important concern that should be raised in this context like anywhere else. kris released a report recently that one wireless company shared 8 million that the coins with law enforcement over the course of the year. mobil companies collect 600 billion data points per day about their users. we're just reading to learn how to work with it. when this kind of data is available to governments on the

terms it is now, that is a surveillance system we are barely able to imagine, but it is very significant. that is important, how it is accessed by government. the rules around that are very important. >> he is afraid of government surveillance. can you offer a more wholehearted defense of what this might be emma >> it is kind of cool -- might be? >> it is kind of cool. if you're getting the ad at the time you might actually use it. i am not going to say it is a bad thing. i think it is a good thing, but like so many things we have talked about today, there is a profound privacy indication, and

all the protections we talked about with transparency and user choice and data retention, they are really important it is one thing to know where your customers are now so you can show the relevance ad. it is another thing to show them a map of where they have been for three years. that the retention is very important. >> they focus on the miss use or potential misuse by the government because of storage. is there some harm to being targeted on the basis of your preference? >> [unintelligible]

the point i want to make is this scenario is a good example of what i was referring to earlier talking about technology. they allow a ninth nice -- nice balance. reserve line of rhythms developed in the 1980 costs devlin to research. we do have technology that allows the to authenticate the transaction. we do have the technology. the challenges how to bring the technology out of lab and into

the marketplace. the regulations try to push the market into adopting this technology, and it definitely works for get >> these technology solutions are helpful. what about a risk-based approach? what are the regulatory approaches to this problem? >> what you're asking about is for individual companies that will be releasing technology, are there ways it can be done in a more private way, and i think that this is absolutely right. we need to see that in terms of greater accountability, which is the idea of how are you structuring that into your individual development process until now common companies have regularly said that is something we're going to do, but i think

we need to start asking the question of whether there should be some principles of accountability we should be requiring. >> how could principles of accountability be implemented specifically? >> they need to be implemented. accountability can be reciprocal. cliff's say you have a condition where all of the tracking and profiling is off three good her reciprocal park would be as a shareholder of an organization i ought to be able to make sure there locations are open to the responsibility-from them.

most often, the commercial operators who argue against privacy by default often say that does not work. i cannot make any money. nobody will turn it on. why not? they are creeps out by it. fine, but you want to make money by not telling people, and only those who discover it and get across the feeling from it will opt out. those conditions do not work. if i am going to retract, perhaps i need to attract global company as well and make sure they are not spending their time in the bahamas or places they

think they are not responsible for their duty. accountability is reciprocal. >> we have time for one more comment. do consumers want contradictory things? they both want to be able to meet up with their friends and are shocked when the data is misused or retained? >> i think if we want to talk about how to get companies to respect consumers'privacy rights, we have to talk about implementing fair practice. location information is just another piece of information that can be used to make assumptions that could be unfounded or on wanted, no

different from the other kind of information we have been talking about, although it could be really sensitive -- not just information about your mobile location but where you travel and who you travel with. that is being collected more and more like government through airlines and other companies and used in ways that consumers would never expect, and in the comments, we pointed out the consumers are unprotected from things like a travel company going bankrupt and all of the information collected about their travel. it is unreasonable to expect consumers are going to be able to anticipate every potential

use of information they unwittingly supplied or ask to supplier for a purpose, and we really need protections. >> privacy discussions can be abstract and unbalanced, or they can be illuminating and precise. i think this panel fits into the second category. it was a panel of competing perspectives and a promising beginning for a productive day, so please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> i want to add a word of thanks to jeff for moderating this panel, and we're going to have a short break. try and keep it to 10 minutes, and we will restart about five un after a love and -- at 5

after 11. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> coming up, the next several hours will look at climate change. first, and update on the fact of greenhouse gas submissions.

following that, the opening of the u.n. climate change conference in denmark. >> the commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan and the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan will testify in two hearings tomorrow on afghanistan strategy. in the morning we will hear from the armed services committee live at 9:30 a.m. on c-span 3. also on the testimony from the armed services committee. we will take testimony from the foreign relations committees. >> greenhouse gas emissions pose

a threat to public health according to lisa jackson. that clears the way for the epa to regulate certain emissions even if congress does not act. this is about half an hour. >> good afternoon, and special hello to those on line and on the phone. the scientific community, the business community, and the policy world has spent decades studying greenhouse gas and climate change. scientists in the united states and around the world have track

in the last century and in particular in the last three decades alarming increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in our skies. that increase is deteriorated in the natural balance in our atmosphere and changing our climate. there has and will continue to be debate about how and how quickly climate change will happen if we fail to act, but the studies show the threat is real, as does the evidence before our eyes. polar ice caps crumbling into the ocean, changing migratory patterns, causing droughts and more powerful storms and disappearing coastlines. after decades, climate change has now become a household issue. parents across the united states and the world are concerned about their children and

grandchildren. governments are investing billions. businesses are investing billions. they know if we do not do something the planet will leave will be very different from the one we have today. in 2007, the supreme court handed down perhaps the most significant decision handed down in environmental law. they ruled the the clean air i is written to include greenhouse gas emissions fearing a thought echoed what many scientists, policy makers, and concerned citizens have said for years. there are no more excuses for delay. regrettably, there was delay,

but this administration will not ignore it any longer, nor will we ignore the responsibility we have for our children and grandchildren. i am proud that we are authorized to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the clean air act. this long overdue finding some myths 2009's place in history of the year when the u.s. government began seriously addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas and seizing the opportunity for clean energy reform. in less than 11 months, we have done more to prevent climate change and in the last 80 years. earlier this year, they established the first and what i believe will be a world-leading greenhouse gas emissions reporting system.

we will begin working to monitor emissions. they will submit publicly available information that will allow us to meaningfully track greenhouse gas emissions over time. this will also bring to light opportunities to jump-start private investment in new technology and products, saving money, and growing the economy. it does all this in a common- sense way without putting a burden on small businesses or critical sectors of our economy. through the fact, president obama has led the way in cutting greenhouse gas and reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, which certain our national security and economy. this provides the legal

foundation for finalizing the recently proposed clean cars program. that was developed in collaboration with the american auto industry in other s -- and other stakeholders and contains the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from american vehicles. starting next spring, large facilities will be required to " -- coordinate the best options when they plan to construct or expand operations. these are reasonable steps to allow us to do with the clean air act does best, drive technology for a better economy and protect the environment for a better future, all without placing an undue burden on businesses in makeup of butter for of our economy regan today fossa announcement and these efforts are designed to complement comprehensive clean energy reform. we look forward to working with

congress to implement the bill once it is signed. we know people will continue to sow doubts about the science. it is no wonder people are confused, but raising doubt, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is a tactic used by defenders of the status quo for years. those have only served to delay and distract from the real work ahead, namely growing our clean energy economy and free ourselves from foreign oil that dangers are security and economy. it is time we let the science speak for itself. we rely on decades of peer- reviewed, extensively-evaluated scientific data. that came from around the world. today's action could disrupt

towards a pragmatic solutions for the enormous challenge of climate change. it is a step towards innovation and implementation of technologies that reduce harmful emissions, and it is a step towards green jobs, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and a better future for our children. it also means we rise of the climate talks in copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment and to facing this global challenge. we hope the announcement serves as another incentive for far- reaching accord in our meeting this week. in taking action now and recognizing this threat now, we joined hundreds of other countries, thousands of leading scientists, tens of thousands of innovators, entrepreneurs, and private companies, millions of americans, and billions of global citizens who have seen the overwhelming evidence and

called for action on climate change. thank you. [applause] >> we are going to open it up for questions. we will do this one a time. [inaudible] >> it is my understanding the epa does not prevent state action, and many states have to enter 50 time limits under the provisions.

will that mean those states must operate at that threshold? >> that is the legal one. state action has been critical in getting us to where we are so far. we work closely with states, and states are a key player of legislation continues. my key point was making sure the american people understand that we believe there are ways to move toward richard forward on regulation. what we have done is given reassurance well those who burn more than 131 a year that regulations can, under the clean air act. but there is a delay in a thing

the investigation. why didn't you delay it, and what scientific basis? >> i did not delay it because there is nothing in the e-mail that undermines his science upon which this decision is based. when you see the decision, you will see the responses include questions about the underlying science fatter been raised began -- raised again with respect to this issue there are questions not addressed already. -you bolster your argument? >> i think the thing to talk about is the amount of science out there. many organizations have been studying this data for years. it is important to contextualize this a little bit.

there are thousands of different threads of analyses all of which reach a consensus, and then we look if the with the flooding and changes in diseases and migratory habits and changes in our water cycle and climate that we now find. >> you said next spring large facilities will be required to incorporate technology i. is the under the clean air act, or are you going to impose a new rule. they have already imposed a new rule those of large facilities would be subject to the requirements under the clean air act. once you know you have a solution than the epa must act

and compel facilities to use the best technology affair. it was pretty smart for people to realize that technology evolves over time, and my belief is that anything has to be done in and night towards what is happening in congress and more importantly, development on what is happening. we cannot implement technology that does not exist. >> [inaudible] >> the work that has to be done is epa would have to put out technical guidance to tell a facility would tuchman receive what that would mean. >> the use still believe that legislative solution is better done this? >> i absolutely do. i stand firm and my belief of

legislation is the best way to move our economy forward and address climate pollution. the reason is legislation is comprehensive. it can transition us, as the president has said, and it can give the absolute certainty we're on the road to clean energy, that the investments they want to make will be possible because they know this country is on the road. that being said, i do not believe this is either or. i see this as both. i believe the clean air can complement legislative efforts, and the clean car rule is excellent. >> several environmental groups have petitioned to set national air quality standards. i wonder what your plans are for

the. >> nothing requires that action. we will respond appropriately. this agency has never believed stand the -- setting a national standard was advisable. we need to get the petition. >> [inaudible] >> today's action is the basis for the rule. you have to find it to be compelled to act under the clean air act. further action would be warranted.

epa continues its work on the regulatory front, and i want to emphasize that i believe it is not either or three of i do not want anyone to leave thinking because we continue our work i do not stand firm in my believe that we need legislation. i also believe quite firmly the third things the clean air act allows us to do that pave the way for this country to move smartly, offensively towards a clean energy future. >> is it your intent to push members of congress who are on the scent to get on your side and to work for a climate end energy bill? >> no, my intention is to follow up on an almost 3-year-old

requirement from the u.s. supreme court that epa address climate coalition, that it address greenhouse gases, that the clean air act allows us to do so, and this draft finding has been worked on for years, predating the obama administration. the other intention is to release these lines that has been worked on so diligently to answer questions about public health and welfare. this year the united states government is saying with respect to crime and pollution we will act. >> [inaudible] 1 liu start imposing rules that

make stationary sources archly cut their e missions? >> i do not have a schedule for additional rules. we have proposed a bill the talks about how it would apply. >> are they going to fast track these? >> no, we have a plan to continue working, and this is certainly not an ending. we will continue to work under the clean air act, because that is what we must legally do. we are compelled to address greenhouse gas submissions. >> the senate leadership has indicated they do not plan to get around to vote on climate change bill until early spring, which of late march, early april, so is it possible but epa

to issue these rules before they get around to voting on a climate change bill? >> i certainly heard the leadership say they do intend to move legislation. we see promising engagements by a number of senators. when they turn to those rules they will have the benefit of reporting inventory that has already been adopted. >> [inaudible] >> this is not either or. i respect and will make sure we are watching and working with congress and their legislative efforts, so they are independent in a timeline. we do not have a timeline that looks at the senate, but they're certainly hope to see that.

>> [inaudible] >> we need the best available technology. >> [inaudible] >> the vast body of scientific evidence not only remain unavailable. it has grown stronger, and its only points to one solution, the greenhouse gases are increasing an unprecedented races. this is firmly grounded in science that comes from independent lines of evidence,

and all the work has been publicly commented on to varying degrees, and if you need one more flight of certainty, it is the critics who have been opposing climate change and scientists who disagree commented during public comment, and many were from scientists who brought of their scientific arguments stand -- all have been responded to in making the findings, and that is why i am certain defiance has been evaluated. the vast body of that is not addressed in any of those females. -- goes e-mail -- those emails. >> [inaudible] >> there's lots of data, but

then there are several other data that has been evaluated by hundreds of scientists, and all of the articles have been here- reviewed, so you are talking about one tiny threads out of thousands that lead me to stand here confident there is no reason to delay. >> we're going to try one last question from the phone. are we ready on the phone? >> your question comes from "the wall street journal." i know you're not cutting out a timeline, but could you give an idea of when you think the earliest would be that they paid -- that they could propose

rules, and could he clarify why you are issuing this role now as opposed to doing it concurrent with the vehicle known, because i am told this is the first time epa has issued a finding separate from loan rule. >> i have no additional information on a timeline, and the second question is common this is different -- is this is different. there has been much written, and earlier this year, they released the findings could together under the bush administration, and never opened. in my mind, it is about doing this job. it is important to our credibility to know the root of this information out for public comment and act in an expeditious fashion.

we would keep the ball moving, and it is my hope congress will keep face on the ball. thank you korean thank you -- thank you. thank you, everybody. >> president obama is attending a u.n. summit on climate change in denmark on december 18, when bargaining on u.s. reductions is expected. now the opening of the climate change conference. this is about an hour and 20

minutes. >> distinguished delegates, honored guests, warm welcome to copenhagen and the united nations climate change conference, 2009. [applause]

today we are honored to have with us his excellency, prime minister of denmark, the president of the conference of the parties of the 14th session, the minister for the united nations climate change conference in copenhagen, her excellency, mayor of the city of copenhagen, and the share of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentleman, this climate change conference will be

followed closely by people from all over the world. many have already raised their voices in their host countries platform. to begin, we would like to assure you are short film about this. following that, we will have a selection from the finish girls choir. . -- from the danish girls' choir.

>> emitting carbon the oxide is hitting this generation and the next generation. >> a high number of refugees all over the world.

♪

[scream] >> all countries will be severely hit if we do not act now and. >> who of hundreds of millions of coming refugees. >> i have heard of the forests filled with birds and butterflies, but i wonder if there will be there for my

children to see. i am not afraid to tell the world how i feel. >> please help the world. ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

[applause] .

>> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, i would now like to invite our distinguished guests and the executive secretary of the united nations climate change secretariat to take their seeds at the podium.

>> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to welcome to the podium his excellency, mr. rasmusen, prime minister of the kingdom of denmark, to address our meeting. you have the floor.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, engaged people of the world, welcome to denmark. welcome to copenhagen, welcome to two weeks where we are to perform what is most difficult in politics, to make difficult but necessary decisions now in order to address mounting problems of the future. global warming knows no borders. it does not discriminate. it affects us all, and we are here today because we are all committed to take action. that is our common point of departure. the magnitude of challenge

before us is to translate this political will into a strong common approach, to forge an agreement that will provide for effective global solutions. climate change is higher on the agenda than ever, and so it should be. the grimm projections from science grow more alarming each day, and already many face the dire consequences of global warming. it is our mission to come to the aid of those who already suffer and to deliver a long-term solution to the mounting problem of global warming. this is our task. this is why we need a strong and ambitious climate change agreement here in copenhagen. the sheer magnitude of our task is matched only by our

determination. for more than a year, we have been conductsing intensive consultation -- conducting intensive consultation in preparation for this conference. in that context i have had the pleasure of engaging with leaders from around the world, your leaders. without exception, they have been supporting an ambitious agreement to halt global warming. i am of course painfully aware that we have different perspectives on the framing and precise content of such an agreement. and i'm sure that no one in this hall underestimates the difficulty we are daysing in finding a common approach in the coming two weeks. but the political resolve to forge a global agreement is manifest, and differences can be overcome if the political

will is present, and i believe it is. as we move ahead over the next days, we will rely critically on you to help to develop an agreement that is most acceptable to all parties and at the same time strong and ambitious, an agreement that is just in principle, an agreement that is effective and operational. to achieve that, we shall need all the technical skills and diplomatic entrepreneurship you command. the world relies on you to successfully conclude the country-driven process that you launched. it relies on us to support you in achieving that success in an exclusive and transparent manner. as i speak to you this morning, 110 heads of state and

government have announced that they will be coming to copenhagen next week. in the conclusion of this conference. their presence reflects an unprecedented mobilization of political determination to combat climate change. it represents a huge opportunity, an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss. your leaders do not come to copenhagen just to talk. they come to act, and they come not to agree to just anything, but to agree to an effective deal based on our fundamental principles, on our common resolve, and on the political, social and economic reality in our countries throughout the world. the agreement world leaders

should adopt next friday here in copenhagen must be founded on the legal principles inscribed in the framework convention, and it must respond to all aspects of the mandates agreed upon in barley two years ago. it must seek to capture progress achieved within the negotiations both under the convention and under the kyoto protocol, providing a powerful response. importantly, it must launch immediate action. the deal that we want leaders to sign off on will be one that affects all aspects of society, just as the climate change does . therefore, the involvement of civil society is of paramount importance. just like negotiators cannot do

this alone, nor can politicians. the ultimate responsibility rests with the citizens of the world, who will ultimately bear the consequences if we fail to act. as decision-makers, it is our obligation to provide the framework for change, and we must unlock the potential for low carbon prosperity. but in order to realize the full potential, our citizens must eventually make it happen. throughout 2009, some of the most important civil society stakeholders have gathered here in copenhagen, at conferences, symptom pose uniforms, round tables -- symptom pose uniforms, and they have voiced their concern and made their

recommendations. scientists have assessed the latest facts, business leaders the opportunities, parliament easterns, and you, the political aspects. and we owe them our gratitude in preparing the ground work and for having contributed to our negotiations. we need to listen to their advice because we are their representatives. the climate agenda has created global communities across all barriers, and we need this global momentum, and we need to build on it. let us not focus on what divides us, but let us keep focused on what brings us together. while you are here in copenhagen in search of new ways to handle climate change,

i hope you will also find inspiration around you. we can change, and we have to change. therefore, we have tried to make a new and a different conference in copenhagen. we have no bottled water. only pure clean drinking water from the tap. two thirds of all food here is organic. we have tried as hard as possible to limit the carbon footprint of the conference. if you have time, ladies and gentlemen, please entertain some inspiration outside the conference center. in copenhagen you will find a large variety of cultural and green tag events. looking in your conference kits , you were perhaps disappointed, or perhaps

relieved not to find a figure arena of a mermaid or other souvenirs. we have decided to cut back on gifts and instead provide financing for scholarships for a two-year program in denmark. [applause] the 11 climate scholars will return to their home countries with knowledge and results that can provide a better future, and so should we. leaders, grassroots and citizens all over the world have sent a strong message of hope for our planet. four million people have spoken their mind on the youtube channel. hope is the starting point of all major efforts.

ladies and gentlemen, the world is depositing hope with you for a short while in the history of minekind. for the next two weeks, copenhagen will be copenhagen. by the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted to us here today, hope for a better future. i call on all of you to make your contributions, to be constructive, flexible and realistic, to be tough in your efforts to reach agreement and show constraint to other negotiating partners. you must do all this, and still be ambitious, courageous and visionary. a deal is within the reach. to work together, we can

accomplish what must be accomplished. so once again, welcome to copenhagen, and thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, prime minister, rasmussen for your statement. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is with pleasure that i invite the mayor of the city of copenhagen to address our meeting. madam mayor, you have the floor. [applause] >> prime minister, cleanses,

ladies and gentlemen, welcome to copenhagen. i look very much forward to host you tonight, and especially to show you how the city hall square will turn copenhagen into hopen-hagen in the time to come. many of you traveled far to get here. all of you still have a long journey ahead before we get a good result in copenhagen. citizens all over the world are calling for action. cities all over the world are ready to help you put all our hopes and goals into action. next week, mayors from more than 70 of the biggest and most important cities will come to copenhagen for the climate summit for mayors to stand side by side with you in the fight against climate change.

today, cities are responsible for more than 75% of global co2 emissions. we also represent more than 50% of the world's population and some of the world's largest economies. so we may be part of the problem, but we are definitely also part of the solution. and cities are ready to act. together with heads of state, we are ready to assume the mantle of leadership in reaching the same goal, a greener planet. al gore says it clearly in his new book, and i quote. if you want to go first, go alone. if you want to go far, go together. we need to go very far, very fast. end quote.

and in copenhagen, we are ready to do so, and mayors from the world's biggest cities are ready to do so. i do hope you will join us. in copenhagen we have been working hard to prepare for your arrival. you are indeed some of our most important guests this year. as a former commissioner, i negotiated for the e.c. in kyoto. i know what is expected from you. i know you will face days of hard work and nights without sleep. but on the optimistic side, i also know how solutions can be reached at the very last moment. so i am absolutely sure you will do a great job in copenhagen. i also hope you will be able to see some of the work we have been doing in copenhagen.

we have been a vision, a goal in fact, to be the first carbon neutral capital in the world by 2025. this is surely a great challenge. we have 50 specific initiatives to achieve the city's target of a 20% reduction in co2 emissions in the period 2005 to 2015. but copenhagen is on its way. 97% of all households in copenhagen have district heating. nearly 50% of the citizens of copenhagen ride their bike every day. in copenhagen, the harbor is so clean that you can even swim in it, although it might be too cold just now. i also hope you will have an

opportunity to glimpse how copenhagen will become a city filled with climate exhibitions and activities to engage the citizens and our many guests. during the u.n. climate change conference, the city hall square in copenhagen will be transformed into a city of hope . that's why we call it hopen-hagen. every day, hopen-hagen will be filled with experiences and exhibitions. a huge interactive globe will light up the december darkness, reflecting in ever-changing shades and hughes -- houston -- hues, the world's engagement with climate. and hopefully those type of

messages will resonate with the negotiators here. i very much look forward to hosting you tonight at the reception at city hall and on the city hall square. so i bid you a very warm welcome and sincerely hope you will leave our city with a good impression and many good experiences. but most of all, i hope that when you leave this conference hall, you will leave the planet safer and greener for the future. so please help us to turn copenhagen into hopen-hagen. please seal the deal. [applause] >> thank you, mayor, for your

warm welcome and for your statement. distinguished, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the podium to address our meeting the cheer of the intergovernmental panel on climate challenge. doctor, you have the floor. [applause] >> your excellency, prime minister of denmark, executive u.n. secretary, her excellency mayor of copenhagen, colleagues, members of the media, distinguished ladies and gentlemen.

it is a great privilege for me to address this august gathering at the fwing of a potentially historic meeting which we all hope will lead to action, action which is required urgently on the basis of scientific assessment of climate change, presented in the report of the ar-4. this report was completed a few weeks held before the 14th meeting held in bahli and has had a profound impact ever since. after that, we have had adequate opportunity to further, study and discuss the findings, and determine actions that are required to be taken globally. this conference must, therefore, lead to actions for implementation, and i quote, by all parties taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities, end of quote.

woes of the most significant findings was conveyed by two simple by profound statements. i quote. warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations in global average of air and water temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and ricing global sea level. and the other quotation which i now mention, most of the observed increase in temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in y.s.t. concentrations. in the 20th century, average global it will increased by 0.74 degrees celsius, and sea level rises aamounted to 17 cent meters. with this increase, several small island states and

low-lying coastal nations like bangladesh, with land surface barely a meter or two above sea level would find that every storm represents a serious danger to life and property. the global community thus has a moral and material responsibility to do all it can to limit the growing impacts of climate change on these and other vulnerable societies across the globe. indeed, we need to give practical expression to the provisions of article 2 of the unfcc, which defines the objectives of the convention as the achieve of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interfeerns with the climate system. on the basis of the ar-4, we know that climate change in the absence of mitigation policies would in all likelihood lead

to, one, possibly disappears of sea ice, two, increase in frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation, three, increase in tropical cyclone intensity. four, decrease in water resources in many semiarid areas such as the mediterranean basin, the western united states, southern africa and north eastern brazil. five, probably elimination of the green land ice sheet and resulting contribution of sea level rise of about seven meters. without met cation, future tense carb -- four to six meters of sea level rice. six, approximately 20% to 30% of speak cease assessed so far being at increased risk of

stings, if global warming averages compete 1.5 to 2.5 degrees celsius. climate change is exacted to exacerbate curent stresses on water resources, including urbanization. the resulting flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality. it is likely that 20% of the world population, which as a fraction could exceed two billion people live in areas where river flood potential could increase by the 2018. in africa by "20/20," between 75 million and 250 million people are projected to be

exposed to water stress due to climate change. and in some countries on that continent, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. another area facing serious impacts of climate change are the oceans, where the upat the time of carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more as i hadic, with an average ph level increasing. the consequences of that could be serious for all forms of organisms. societies must respond to climate change by adapting to its impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. there are viable options that can be implementing in sectors with low cost and or high benefit-cost ratios. research suggestion that higher

benefit-cost ratios can be achieved by implementing some adaptation measures at an early stage compared to long-lived infrastructure at a later date. based on this reality, this conference must put in place measures for financing adaptation projects in some of the most vulnerable regions in the world. this conference must lead to urgent initiation of large scale actions. this must involve action in the developed countries because the developed country parties must take the lead in combatting climate change and the effects there of. mitt cation of emissions is essential because the ipcc has assessed its cost to be modest. to limit average temperature increase to two degrees to 2.4 degrees celsius, the cost of mitigation by 2030 would not

exceed 3% of the global g.d.p. in other words, the so-called prosperity expected in 2030 would be postponed by just a few months. mitt cation carries many co-benefits such as lower levels of air. >> it is gratifying that the leaders have recognized the significance of lower the average temperature by two degrees celsius. if temperature increase is to be limited to between 2 and 2.4 degrees, global emissions would be limited by 2015. some may question the goal of two degrees celsius as a ceiling because this would lead

to sea level rise of 0.4 to 1.4 meters. this increase adding to the effect of melting snow and ice across the globe could submerge several small island states and bangladesh. there is now experience to show there are a wide variety of national policies and instruments available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. there is no better real life laboratory to learn from than our host country denmark. through a series of enlightened policies, denmark has brought about a revolution in wind energy technology. modern detain us win turbines are now able to produce almost 100 times as much electric than the -- left than the turbines manufactured in 1980. it would be correct to assume that a move to renewable

sources of energy would cause employment generation to take place with enhanced economic output. if you look at the example of denmark, sales of wind manufactured energy has grown from 200 megawithout, to 600 megawatts a year. it is economically attractive. denmark as generated jobs and revenues in this sector. the evidence is now overwhelming that the world would benefit greatly from early action, and that would only lead to costs in economic and human terms that would become progressively high. the ipcc has been able to provide substantial evidence that science provides us with the basis for undertaking changes that this conference must urgently initiate. given the wide-ranging nature

of change that is likely to be taken in hand, some find it inconvenient to accept its inevitability. the recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists so that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the ipcc. but it has transparent and objective data stretching over 21 years. i'm proud to inform this conference for the finding of the er-4 are based on measuremented by independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate thation on lapped, the atmosphere and the oceans. the internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including though individuals

singled out in these e-mail exchange, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in the cities of assessment reports in the past 21 years. the assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer review processes, or from our sources which have undergone robust peer review. the process of the ipcc is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. in the last report, there were a total of around 2,500 expert reviewers performing this review process. consequently, there are ton for any expert to draw attention to a piece of literature and to

ensure a wade range of views. we are conscious of the responsibility we bear and the expectations that we must deal with in providing fair, comprehensive and objectively-produced assessments of climate change. i owe a tribute and debt of gratitude to my predecessors, and the tens of thousands of sign tiffses who have established traditions that establish impeccable consult in the pursuit of our collective goals. in this tribute, i find no basis for any competitions. lastly, i also are express my deep gratitude to this bode for the recentivity and appreciation that they have always displayed in accepting the results of our work. distinguished ladies and gentlemen, we give you our assurance of continuing with

unflinching devotion to our duty and upholding the sacred trust you have bestowed on us. thank you very much. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the podium, the executive secretary of the climate change secretariat to address our meeting. you have the floor. [applause]

>> my mom was holding my younger brother, and my oiler sister was holing my younger sister. the wind and the rain became stronger, and the tide level covered the bank. we dipped our legs in the mud so we wouldn't drift away in the tide. when the water level was up to my dad's chest, we decided to climb trees. suddenly, the tree fell because of the strong winds, and then i was separated from my mom and dad. i clung to a tree trunk and floated along with it. the rain was really heavy, and it was painful when it hit my back. i drifted the whole night, and i was terrified.

i couldn't find my mom, my dad and younger sister. these are the words of a 6-year-old boy speaking after a devastating cyclone. a few weeks later, he was reunited with his sisters and grandmother through save the children's family tracing program. but sadly, there was never any news from his parents or his younger brother. in his words, i miss them, and i always wonder whether they are still alive. excellencies, ministers and ladies and gentlemen, it is repetitions of this that the world is here to prevent. welcome to copenhagen. it is clock has ticked down to zero. after two years of negotiation, the time has come to deliver.

at this time of the year, many people are busy crepping their christmas cakes. to my -- preparing their christmas cakes. to my mind, the ideal christmas cake that needs to come out of copenhagen has three layers. the bottom layers consists of action on mitigation, finance, technology, and capacity building. the second layers consists of ambition on emission reduction commitments and action. it also includes commitments to start up finance on the order of $10 billion per year as well as long-term finance. and the third layer, or the icing on the cake, consists of a shared vision on long-term cooperative action and a long-term goal. and i hope that prime minister rasmussen will light the

candles on this cake next friday. over the row sent weeks and months, i have heard a multitude of statements calling for a successful agreement in copenhagen. and i have heard strong political statements calling for serious emission goals and captures significant technology and financial support to developing country. there is a caribbean saying that goes one, one, dotty build dam. it means build a sturdy wall one brick at a time. solid success also needs to be built brick by brick and from the bottom up. in copenhagen, this needs to be done during the come days. copenhagen will only be successful if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day this conference ends.

in the week ahead, the focus needs to be on crafting solid and practical proposals that will unleash prompt as on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology red capacity building. developing countries desperately need tangible immediate action on these issues. much of the work that has been accomplished over the past two years can be turned into immediate action. solid action-oriented propose always will give real meaning for the commitment to success in copenhagen that has been building momentum around the globe. such proposals will also provide a strong foundation for further efforts. through the kof, the cmp, the awglp, and others, there are six days to get it done before ministers arrive.

ministers will then have two days to take issues forward before leaders arrive. this means that there are a total of eight days to prepare a workable package that cons sists of both immediate and long-term components which leaders can endorse on december 18. the time for formal statements is over. the time for restating well-known positions is past. the time has come for reach out to each other. i urge you to build on your achievements. take up the work that has already been done and turn it into real action. deliver. reach for success. ensure that millions of children across the world don't suffer the same fate as nele.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you, for your statement. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the end of the welcoming ceremony. please join me in thanking our hosts, the government and the people of the kingdom of denmark, for their hospitality and the special guests for their presence here today. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, you are kindly asked to remain in your seats in order to allow prime minister rasmussen and their

guests to take their leave. following which i would like to invite to the podium his excellency mr. noit, president of the conference of its 14th session to officially open the its 15th session and conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties at its fifth session, and to deliver his statement. thank you.

>> it is my great pleasure to declare open the 15th conference to the united nations framework convention on climate change. [applause] >> distinguished delegates from all over the world, ladies and gentlemen, today we are beginning the historic 15th united nations climate change conference. here in copenhagen, governments from all countries of the world have come together to take a critical step on addressing the greatest risk facing mankind,

the risk of global warming. this was first brought to our attention by scientists. and in response, governments of the world agreed to the united nations framework convention on climate change. it is now the world's most important mechanism for dealing with this issue. we are all well aware that all the nations have exceptional expectations towards this conference. as indicated in the bali action plan and in crop14, this conference in copenhagen should set out the directions for fighting climate changes for several deg aids. countries with substantial emissions of carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases should make specific commitments to reduce such emissions. developing countries and especially the least developed countries can expect great financial, technical and organizational assistance for aadaptation to climate change, but for quick social and economic development. it is nothing more than simple human solidarity. but the effort of prevention of climate change generates not only cost, they create also a great opportunity for all nations to introduce fundamental changes of their economic systems, with a chance for introduction of modern

effective and energy-saving technologies, and a chance to gradually abandon fossil fuels for production of clean energy from renewable energy sosses. ladies and gentlemen, dear delegates, here in copenhagen, it is an historic moment for our entire planet, and i think that each of us should have the same feeling that we are taking part in a really remarkable meeting. this feeling should awaken the spirit of solidarity and compromise in us. in these historic moments, let us all see above our particular interests, and during

negotiations, let us always keep in mind the greater good, the global problem and the common goal of the conference. only by acting in such a manner will he be able to reach a global agreement, an agreement which will serve the whole of mankind. let's do all we can to reach this goal. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, i would like to invite you to turn to subitem 2-a of the provisional agenda for this session. the title of this item is

election of the president of the conference at its 15th session. may i refer you to the following document, cb-2009, slash one, addendum one. you may recall that in accordance with rule 22, paragraph 1 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, the office of president of the conference of the parties is subject to rotation of the five original grooms. we now continue the cycle with the western european group. it gives me great pleasure that the conference elect the minister of the united nations

climate change conference in copenhagen, 2009, who will serve as president of the conference at its 15th session. [applause] >> hearing no objections, it is so decided. [applause] >> may i congratulate him, and i wish you all the best for this very important job at the 15th session of the convention. i now invite her to take her seat on the podium. [applause]

>> thank you very much for the election. i promise you as president i will do my very best to listen to you, the parties, and to

ensure transparency. may i also take this opportunity to very warmly thank minister nowicki for his very strong personal commitment. it has always been a very big pleasure to work with you. thank you so much for all your efforts. [applause] >> for a long time, copenhagen was the name of a distant deadline. next year, next cop, next month. but now, it is now. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the danish capitol. this one has come to c, c for copenhagen, but all c for constructiveness, c for

cooperation, and hopefully in the end, c for commitment and consensus. in short, let's get it done. this is the time to deliver. this is the place to commit. and yes, i know there are still many obstacles, but it is up to us, us in this room now, to try to overcome them. and it is doable. i base my confidence on daily contact with ministers from every group and every continent, and i appreciate very much the trust and overwhelming support ministers and governments have granted to me, so the secretariat and to the chairs. and make no mistake, denmark is committed to maximum progress in the two tracks, the convention track and the kyoto protocol, and to ensure

successful and ambitious outcome. let's get it done. [applause] >> the science has never been clearer. the solutions have never been more bun dant. political will has never been stronger. and let me warn you. political will, will never be stronger. this is our chance. if we miss this one, it could take years before we get a new and better one, if we ever did. actually, the truth is that the copenhagen deadline already works. in recent weeks and months, many developed countries have announced economy-wide emissions reductions. and many developing economies of indicated ambitious national actions as their contributions to the global effort.

china, brazil, mexico, south korea, singapore, indonesia, a few days ago india, and last night, south africa just to mention a few. every positive announcement will improve our chances of staying below the two degrees celsius tarpgt. but as we all know only too well, we are not there yet. and this goes for financing as well. maybe finance is an even bigger challenge. we have seen some positive dynamics in structure and amounts, but in the next two weeks we need to work really hard and find both public and private money. especially, we need money we can count on in the longer term. it is crucial that we ensure a new additional and predictable

financial flow for adaptation and technology in developing countries. dear negotiators, this year you have had weeks of extra negotiating time. since june you have worked with a negotiation text. preparations have been unparalleled. and i take it that your family and friends expect you to be less busy next year than this year. but if so, that means we must get it done now. you're ability to make pro gretzky this first week is a precondition for the success of all of us next week. therefore, compromise, agree. find concrete solutions. use every skill available to pave the way for ministers and leaders for finalize the deal.

we conclude cop 15 when our leaders join us. and leaders have made it very clear they expect to adopt a global agreement 11 days from now. inincludes the results of your work under both the lca and the k.p. that provide the most powerful push and the strongest incentive to conclude your work. finally, to those that may still hold back ambition, fearing their economies will suffer, no, we don't have to choose between economic growth or climate conservation. a global deal will drive job creation. a global deal will drive competitive advantage. a global deal will drive energy security. so ladies and gentlemen, let's get it done. the time has come to set the right course for our world

while we still can. the agreement we adopt in copenhagen must be comprehensive. it must deliver on all major questions across the building blocks. it must launch immediate action, and it must capture all the progress up to now. let us, on december 18th, look each other straight into the eyes and take satisfaction in the fact that we all gave our very best to the defining gathering of a generation. let copenhagen be remembered for the spirit of c, constructionist and cooperation, leading to commitment and consensus. let's mark this meeting in history. let's open the door to the low carbon age. let's get it done, and let it get down n