going to work very hard to make sure that they are strong enough. in by using this two-tier structure, to build up additional capital, we think we can get the balance right back to mean having much stronger rules but not taking meaningful risks but we're paying close attention to that and we will work hard to make sure that these rules are strong enough. position to share with this and think on the plans for the fannie mae and freddie mac, especially given the weakness of the market. what to be the time horizon? >> i am looking forward to sharing those views with you. now is not quite yet the moment.

similar to what we are discussing in terms of capital reform, we have to balance it. we have a system that obviously did not work. there are fundamental aspects, including how the firms are designed, that are not tangible for the future. they will require sleeping fundamental change. we also have to make sure that we help advance this process repair. we are seeing more stable house prices. we still have a lot to work there. it is very important to the strength of recovery. it is fair for the american people that we continue to make sure we are reinforcing the process of repair. we have to find a way to make sure we have a system that provides a reasonable security. this is something that we have

to preserve and build, but the system have today is not sensible for the future. we will have to bring about quite dramatic reforms. the institutions were allowed to build a huge portfolios of security without the capital to build and back the risk in those commitments. they did not apprise their guarantees at a level that allowed them to build a cushion against losses. followed the market down, helping to contribute to what was a fair amount of excess and access to credit for housing. those things we can change. the system works quite well for many decades. this is not rocket science. it will not be hard for us to

fix the problems. when disney to build political support for doing it. we are obligated under the law to put forward legislative proposals to achieve that for the next year. >> all the way in the back. >> some people say the u.s. is heading for japan sized inflation. do you agree with this assessment? >> i do not. was that clear enough? [applause] -- [laughter] when we were sitting with the president in the early stages of the transition, looking at an economy that was shrinking at about 7% a year, the deepest contraction in growth in decades, a larger financial

shock than that which precipitated the great depression -- we were trying to figure out which strategy to choose. the president made it clear that we were going to err on the side of fixing this quickly, and not deferring the tough things to put up the financial fire. we were going to try to follow as best we could the basic lessons of mistakes made by many governments. we have to believe been waiting too long to escalate only gradually, largely because -- people always open this going to get better -- the political costs of acting with force are always extremely high. know what to be in a position of having to take the steps -- no one wants to be in a position of having to take the steps

that will be considered of helping institutions that help precipitate a crisis. they wait too long to help. the over do it rather than under do it. that is a little oversimplified. that is a simple level of response of response. the president's men clear we would not do that. if you look at what we did alongside the fed, we decided to put in place overwhelming financial force to break the back of the financial panic, to stabilize the financial system, to recapitalize early, to force transparency on the market so the markets to differentiate, to use tax incentives, substantial investment, support for states to break the free-fall from private demand. because of that, and if you look at any base a graph of

financial market of confidence in investment of growth, what happened to trade and exports, the world turned once they saw the full scope of the commitment to act to address the crisis. that is when the basic beginnings of recovery began. in many ways, we have seen grow stronger than anyone expected. job creation in the private sector is much slower than we would like. it came sooner than it did in the last two recoveries. our financial system is in a stronger position today because the move more quickly. because our basic knowledge -- because of our basic knowledge i am confident we will avoid that fate. but it is time for two more questions. here on the right. >> it is good to see you.

>> nice to see you. >> we are a housing agency. you mentioned being up front in terms of helping to shape different roles that are coming out. in the long run, you see a role for the not-for-profit market in being able to work with the new department after being created? >> absolutely. we have a system not of six banks for two banks or three banks, but of 9000 things. -- banks. those community banks across the country still provide a very substantial fraction of credit to small businesses, credit to communities, and we are going to work carefully to preserve that. if you look at the basic

strategy in this bill, we have made a conscious effort to make sure that we are in effect going to hold the largest firms to tougher standards, in part to preserve the basic strength of our system. cdfi's in particular play a unique role in communities across the country. as i am sure you know, we have been very careful to use the authority congress gave us to deal with the potential collapse of our financial system to make sure we are providing capital to the cdfis. that is a very high return investment for the taxpayer. it is very important we find ways to make sure the forms play an active role in those communities. >> final question here in the front row to my left. >> i work with the preeti management company. what might be your view about

your bush tax cut with the small-business? would you favor to extend it? >> excellent question. let me describe what the best strategy we think is going forward. we are asking congress to act to extend the tax cut president bush put in place that went to benefit more than 95% of americans at work in this country. we are proposing to extend -- temporarily extend another tax benefit that went to 95% of working americans that was put in place as part of a recovering addict. we are proposing to extend a series of business tax cuts which we think will be helpful to vincente investment and hiring -- to in since -- incent investment and hiring. we are proposing to make sure we keep tax rates on investment income at a reasonable level, which the president defined as 20%. we are proposing to make it possible, to allow the tax cuts president bush put in place to go only to the 2% highest

earners in the country, to expire on schedule. we think that it be fair and responsible thing to do. the economy can withstand the effects of that expiry. it will allow us to show to the american people and world aware of the political will to begin to act to reduce our long-term deficit. there are some people who'll think we should extend to them. it is important for them to understand that they are a very -- they go to people who do not need the money and are very unlikely to spend the money. if you believe in adding more support to the economy now,

there are much better forms of tax measures and other things that would help support growth. it is in poor and to recognize that if you decide to extend -- important to recognize that if you decide to extend all of them temporarily, then you add a lot of uncertainty to the economy. i do not think that with offer to go before recovery. we think that package of tax measures that go to the overwhelming bulk of people who earn a living in this country is a better balance of support for the economy. it is a more responsible way to do it. it is a fair way to do it. >> thank you very much for your remarks. thank you for taking questions. thank you to all of you for joining us here today. thank you. [applause]

>> in a few moments, bp's efforts to seal the well in the gulf of mexico. in about half an hour, president obama speaks at a democratic fund raiser in atlanta. then a hearing on online privacy. then we will hear treasury secretary to tim geithner at the university of new york. on washington journal, richard white's will look at the process of withdrawing troops from iraq. it will talk about the economy and jobs with the rev. jesse jackson, founder of the rainbow coalition. and then sandy praeger. "washington journal" is live on

c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> next, a retired coast guard admiral thad allen on plugging the leakey and well in the gulf. the plan is to put mud and cement down the well. this is about half an hour. >> obviously, the topic of the day are the static test. i would like to bring you up to speed on this. -- >> there's a lot of interest on the sequence of events. i am not taking any question. when i'm done. we have the ability to put money into the well, which will significantly reduce the risk of the discharge and assist in the ultimate bottom killing result.

there are four steps to this. i want to go over each. over the last 24 hours to 36 hours, the main preparation has been done for this. all of this is going on with been q4000. it has been producing however, turns out of the stack. to do that, -- it has been producing hydrocarbons out of the stack. we had to rig down the q4000 line. part of that involved making sure the controls, which controlled the bells on the subsea portion of this work and all the plants have been tested at the proper pressure --

plangents have been tested at the proper pressure. there were all tested, calibrated, and operating properly. there will be three different ways we will be measuring pressure. there will be three different gauges. one will be acoustics were we will take pressure measurements and there will be transferred to a wireless modem and then to the surface. we will have analog pressure gauges, which we will look utilizing the camera on the robots. there are three different ways to measure the pressure and send it back to houston. we're at the point where we are scheduling to begin the injection test itself. i was advised there was a small leak on a valve in the q4000 they are preparing right now. that will probably take a couple of hours.

they will look at starting the injection test later this afternoon. the injection test is designed to do three things. establish communication for fluid to flow from the q4000 into the well, to establish pumping up rates, and they will do that by pumping oil at the rates were that would put the mud down to make sure all the lines and pathways can hold that rate, and finally, the pressure check. the science team working with the bp engineers has decided if they go through this procedure, the pressure should not exceed 8,000 pounds per square inch. there's pressure on the pumphead on the q4000 make sure that the pressure does not exceed 8000 psi. cut the background noise there? thank you.

these final evaluation will probably take several hours. then we will have operation at static killed. static kill is not something that will happen today. it is a potential that will come from the diagnostic test being done. it is not an end in itself. it is pumping mud at a very low rate. they will pump it in, first of all, 1 barrel per minute at the rate of two barrels per minute, and it will slowly pump that into the blowout preventer. the results of this are going to depend on where the oil is. there are three places where

there can be oil. we have the drill pipe itself. we are not sure the condition or how far that runs down. we have the casing in which the drill pipe cents, and we have the area outside the casing. depending on how much space we have to fill up, that will determine how long it will take. if it is only the casing is self, it will be a relatively short time. if they have to drill the casing, it could take much longer. the entire operation to be from 33 hours to 61 hours. we will be passing updates as we find them up. he may ask why the team would be filling the top kill. there is the possibility, and we do not know this, that there

could be a sealed further down in the well that could have been compromised to allow the oil to come down in the well. they need to be prepared, not only to put money down in the drill pipe and casing, but to fill from the top as well. this will be dictated by what they find. there should be low pressure decline. that would tell them that they are slower -- slowly overcoming the pressure -- within five or six hours of this committee pressure readings will be very significant. at that point, unless they have to ascertain exactly what they will be putting the mud in -- a mostly have ascertained -- unless they have ascertain exactly where they will be putting the money in --

a finished the casing run a. we are holding what we have got right now. this is pending results because of the diagnostics. the pressure will tell us a lot more about the casing as relates to what we need to do from the bottom up. as i said, once we decide to reject it is offset by about 4.5 feet from the well right now. that will be an inclination of 2.9 degrees. at that point, they will proceed to pump mud in. you can see from the top first, you can get the diagnostics. we will do as much as we can. i'll be glad to take any questions you may have. >> you have been very consistent all along.

you just said it again, regarding the relief well. bp has been consistent up until this morning. this morning is says the static killed may kill the well he was essentially suggesting they might not go forward. i am wondering why there is that inconsistency. are they going to do the relief well or not? you have been very consistent. >> if the seals are in place, they are not compromised. they cannot fill from the top, and you cannot kill the well otherwise. i do not think you can predict it will happen. >> [unintelligible]

>> i think you're going to need the final step to make sure the mud effort from the top, that everything is done. i think they would agree with that. i think we may be looking at semantic tool differences year. my duty as a commander -- we do not know the condition of the well. >> you said it would be 31 hours to 66 hours before you knew what the status would be? is that from the beginning of the activities test? >> no, it is after the end activity test is done. we must understand exactly what the pressure means a much the maximum pressure is in kneecapping. it could be less. they're looking at about another five hours. it will start pumping mud in.

that is at 2 barrels per minute. that will give them a threshold. so as they pump those two barrels per minute in of the next five or six hours, they are going to try to discriminate exactly how much is on and to determine whether they have an issue with the casing or something else. that will take five hours. four or five. it could either be on the low side, 33 to completed, or as much as 61. is that responsive? >> thank you, sir. about the dispersants -- at any point, did bp use more dispersants than it said it would use? >> i am not going to get into a

line item analysis. we could do that. the fact of the matter is this is under an order that was certified after we made a reporter at the end of the month. in some cases, we identified the fact that we did not attack with this persons, and it was probably not scalable or burnable or weather conditions would not allow to be treated some other way. these are decisions that made tactically on a day-to-day basis based on information and the decision, the collective decision of the people working on this in the command post. you can look dead each incident and take a look at it.

in general, that is the process we will follow. >> hello. of the weekend, some local parish officials -- over the weekend, some local parish officials raised the issue of oil response. where do efforts stand to deal with the underwater oil plumes, and how does that deal with how the oil will be removed from some of these parishes? >> that is a great point. with the science team the together last week. they will do two things. one is the flow rate. the other is the oil budget. we expect over the next 36 hours to 72 hours to come up with a final report about what the flow rate is. if the rate is x, then over sunny days, you probably have so much oil out there. -- then over so many days, you probably have some much oil out there. the question is, where is that

at tax as you know, we've been doing extensive testing of the water column. the further the getaway, the fewer hydrocarbons they will find. if we will continue to open fishing areas. it may be out there and we do not know where it is at. -- at that point, unless they have ascertained exactly where they are putting the mud and in -- at that point, and must have ascertained exactly where they are putting the money in -- at that point, unless they have ascertain exactly where they are putting the mud in. -- at that point, unless they have ascertained exactly where they are putting the mud in -- -- it has been producing hydrocarbons out of the stack.

there were three incidents in the last recourse,. i was in venice last thursday and we got a brief there received a load of defective boom. in the process of transforming that out, we were confronted and approached with the fact that we were abandoning the parish. absolutely not true. we had another incident where we were trying to retrieve absorbent boom that have become oil. if you put of the bone back out because it absorbs oil, removing that boom, we would move bone from the parish. we were asked to provide resources to assist in the blowout

>> i'm with dow jones. so, basically we will know later tonight if the injection of mud is going to take place? >> we will start it and it will be about 2 barrels per minute for us to get pressure readings backed to tell us whether we're filling the casing -- once we start, we should get a good feel of where we are at within 24 hours. >> by wednesday, we should know whether this effort work or not? >> we have to put a number of barrels in there to make sure we know we are dealing with. i do not want to presuppose the outcome. one of the things we're looking for is if we start pumping mud in and the pressure stays there, that means it's going

somewhere. that would be of concern. so you want the pressure too slowly decrease until becomes 0 in the well, meaning the amount ofmud is equal to the pressure being pushed up. but if it stops short of there, we will have a problem with the integrity of the casing of the well. but it will tell us what we need to do for the bottom kill. blacks at -- >> at this time, we can go to questions on the phone. >> and wondering what is the status of everything needed for contained in if there's a problem with the relief wells or static kill? are all of these vessels out there, ready to set up? >> the helix producer one is on the scene and can be hooked up to the vertical riser package

installed just before we did the cappings back. the other production platform we were using is the q4000. we would reverse what i just explained earlier. we would have to stop the down pumping operation and make the q4000 capable of production and they would flare off natural gas. the discovery enterprise was producing off the top hat device and is standing by. this will not happen overnight. there will probably be some discharge in the environment for that to occur. but the capping stack is in place and the science team together with bp engineers have determined it is safe to move ahead with the injection test and static kilt at this point. in the event that something happens and there is a discharge, we have 22 very large ocean skimming vessels

standing by. is that responsive? >> yes. thank you. >> you mentioned yesterday that you are putting together a detailed response of some of the allegations on dispersants. where does that response stand? you also mentioned talking about using them on a case by case basis. did it save the day on a case by case basis? >> we are putting that together right now. let me make a few general comments about this person's. they are authorized as an alternative technologies -- about dispersants. they are authorized as an alternative technology. we did not have an easy way to do it during the exxon valdez and we spent the entire 1990's at the area committee along the

coastline of the united states conducting negotiations and setting up articles by which local commanders could use burning or dispersants if criteria were met. i was the captain of the port of long island sound from 1993- 1996 and i had to negotiate those calls. once the protocols were met by lot, by regulation, commanders can use those, which we did at the start of this response. having said that, we got into the third week of may and it was apparent to everyone we were using dispersants on a scale the was never envisioned. we were in agreement that we should do something to monitor it. the admiral heading the unified command at that point met with les jackson to set the goal of reducing the dispersants by 75% as we move forward. you can argue about semantics -- the exceptions would be rare.

so we are down to a discussion of what is rare and when the do you do it? as we tried to deal with oil on the water, tactically, when we sought, you would need to have much closer coordination -- when we saw it, you need have a much more coordination. as a result of the meeting with lisa jackson, we put epa personnel and to decision making process -- into the decision making process. but the responsibility lies with the federal on scene coordinator to make a decision to use those. they are not constrained by law as long as it meets the protocols in the existing contingency plan. the goals we have laid out with epa were largely met as we reached 72%. you can find exceptions and there are times when maybe not everybody agreed on what we

should do. but the fact of the matter is folks were managing these things on seen tactically and managing them under conditions of uncertainty. we had never used dispersants at this level 4. to the extent there is an issue about, i'm accountable. -- had never used it at this level before. >> my understanding is when the static kill starts, we could see some oil in the system. [unintelligible] from the diagram, it looks like maybe just a couple of hundred feet. wonder if he ever more clarity on how big it has to be to kill the well. >> you talked about a potential oil leak. we have several small leaks around the cappings back and blowout preventer right now. they're nothing consequential. when the mud starts being pumped in, at 2 gallons per minute, it will start to press down the well column and offset the weight of the oil there and drive down toward the reservoir.

there will be a small amount of well above where the show klein comes into the top of the capping stack. that will be compressed as the mud is pumped into the well but should not result in any significant pressure increased. i discussed this with the science team and engineers myself this morning. after that, it will be how does it. we'll take pressure readings and try to determine from the pressure readings we see a various places on the cappings back and a blowout preventer,

whether we are dealing with filling the casing or the casing and the annulus. the decision on whether to put some and then after the mud will be completely dependent on the assessment of the casing and the well bore, with the diagnostic testing shown and if we do not have to cement, we can do it as a result of the bottom kill operation. that leads back to the question -- i do not think we concede this day, it is a series of diagnostic tests, we cannot see this as the and all be all until we get the relief wells done. >> in terms of -- dare we talking about a couple hundred feet -- are we talking about a couple hundred feet. >> it depends what we're talking about the casing or the casing and the annulus. we will have to have the science team and engineers sit down and talk about it and decide what the witness in

trying to -- discuss what the wit -- what the wisdom is in trying to do that. there are some conditions that lead you to believe you want to do it through the bottom kill. i don't think we can presume that until we know the results of the mud being pumped down. i hate to not be exact, but we need to understand what the pressure readings tell us as we pump mud into the well. >> we are prepared to take our final question. >> do all relief all activities have to be stopped during static kill? are there any -- is there any progress that could be made on the relief well during the static kill? >> on the development driller 3, have pulled back and are

keeping it clean and ready to go. it has a shoe that has been placed in the bottom of it. they will drill through the cement chute and proceed that last hundred feet. that will be done in 20-25 foot anchorman's. -- 20-25 foot increments. once we know the diagnostics from the test we're doing right now, we're looking at five or seven days before we would be ready to go because you have to put the drill back down and start their runs down the last 100 feet. >> no drilling would take place during the static kill operations? >> based on what we find out from the static kill, that will define what has to be done after we intercept the annulus. those preparations will have to

be made in conjunction -- but right now, that formula has not been solved because they're waiting on information to be developed in terms of the diagnostics we will see in the next 36-72 hours. >> thank you, everyone for joining us here today. that concludes today's national incident commander briefing. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> senate majority leader harry reid says that the debate on the elena kagan confirmation will begin tomorrow. also, if you more states will hold primary elections. you will hear from candidates in kansas, missouri and michigan as part of our 2010 election

coverage here on c-span. >> president obama raise money for the democratic party monday at a convention in atlanta. he talked about political strategy heading into the midterm elections. this is a little less than half an hour. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. have a seat. well, we have some just extraordinary leaders here today. i want to acknowledge a few of them. first of all, please give another round of applause to your outstanding young mayor, kasim reed. [applause]

three wonderful members of congress who are fighting day in, day out, on behalf of the people of georgia but also on behalf of people all across this country -- congressman sanford bishop -- [applause] -- congressman david scott -- [applause] -- and one of the genuine heroes of this country, congressman john lewis. [applause] our labor commissioner and u.s. senate candidate michael thurmond is in the house. [applause] attorney general thurbert baker -- [applause] -- i think is here. if not, give him a round of applause anyway.

ag commissioner tommy irvin. [applause] state party chair jane kidd. [applause] and the dnc southern finance chair daniel halpern is in the house. [applause] so, atlanta, it is wonderful to be here, wonderful to be among so many good friends. a lot of people here worked hard on behalf of my campaign. i am reminded of the story president lincoln told about one of his supporters who came to the white house seeking some patronage, seeking a job. and apparently in the outdoor reception area, he said, look, i want to see lincoln personally because i'm responsible for him getting that

job. nobody did more than me. it's payback time. so lincoln lets him into his office. he says, sir, i understand that you take responsibility for me having this job. the guy says, that's right. and lincoln says, you're forgiven. [laughter] look, we all know that the last few years have been extraordinarily challenging for the united states. eighteen months ago, i took office after nearly a decade of economic policies that gave us sluggish growth, falling incomes, and a record deficit, and policies that culminated in the worst financial crisis that we've seen since the great depression.

in the last six months of 2008, three million americans lost their jobs. the month i was sworn, january of 2009, 750,000 americans lost their jobs; 600,000 were lost a month later. all told, 8 million jobs lost as a consequence of this crisis. now, we didn't get here by accident. we got here after 10 years of an economic agenda in washington that was pretty straightforward -- you cut taxes for millionaires, you cut rules for special interests, and you cut working folks loose to fend for themselves. that was the philosophy of the last administration and their friends in congress. if you couldn't find a job or

you couldn't go to college, tough luck -- you're on your own. but if you're a wall street bank or an insurance company or an oil company, then you got to write your own ticket and play by your own rules. and we know how this turned out. so when i took office, because of the help of some of the people in this room, we put forward a new economic plan -- a plan that rewards hard work instead of greed; a plan that rewards responsibility instead of recklessness; a plan that's focused on making our middle class more secure and our country more competitive in the long run -- so that the jobs and industries of the future aren't all going to china and india, but are being created right here in the united states of america.

instead of spending money on tax breaks for folks who don't need them and weren't even asking for them, we're making smart investments in innovation and clean energy and education that are going to benefit all of our people and our entire economy over the long run. [applause] and instead of giving special interests free reign to do whatever they want, we're demanding new accountability from wall street to washington -- so that big corporations have to play by the same rules that small businesses and entrepreneurs do. now, because the policies of the last decade got us in such a deep hole, it's going to take

some time for us to dig ourselves out. we're certainly not there yet. but i want everybody to understand, after eighteen months, i can say with confidence we are on the right track. [applause] when we were -- instead of losing millions of jobs, we have created jobs for six straight months in the private sector. instead of an economy that is contracting, we've got an economy that is expanding. so the last thing we would want to do is go back to what we were doing before. and i want everybody in this room to understand, that is the choice in this election. [applause] the choice is -- the choice is whether we want to go forward or we want to go backwards to

the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. now, understand, it'd be one thing if the republicans had seen the error of their ways. [laughter] right? i mean, if after the rejections of 2006 and 2008, realizing, gosh, look at this big disaster that we caused and taking record surpluses into record deficits and causing all this hardship -- we're going to rethink our approach and go out in the wilderness for a while, come back with some new ideas. [laughter] but that's not what happened. it's not like they've engaged in some heavy reflection. they have not come up with a single, solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the american people. they don't have a single idea that's different from george bush's ideas -- not one. [applause]

instead, they're betting on amnesia. [laughter] that's what they're counting on. they're counting on that you all forgot. they think that they can run the okey-doke on you. [laughter] bamboozle you. [laughter] i mean, think about it, these are the folks who were behind the steering wheel and drove the car into the ditch. so we've had to put on our galoshes, we went down there in the mud, we've been pushing, we've been shoving. they've been standing back, watching, say you're not moving fast enough, you ain't doing it right. [laughter] why are you doing it that way? you got some mud on the car. right? [applause] that's all right.

we don't need help. we're just going to keep on pushing. we push, we push. the thing is slipping a little bit, but we stay with it. finally -- finally -- we get this car out of the ditch, where we're just right there on the blacktop. we're about to start driving forward again. they say, hold on, we want the keys back. [laughter and applause] you can't have the keys back -- you don't know how to drive. [laughter and applause] you don't know how to drive. and i do want to point out, when you get in your car, when you go forward, what do you do? you put it in "d." when you want to go back, what do you

do? [laughter] you put it in "r." we won't do want to go into reverse back in the ditch. we want to go forwards. we got to put it in "d." [applause] can't have the keys back. [laughter] the choice in this election is between policies that encourage job creation here in america or encourage jobs to go elsewhere. that's why i've said instead of giving tax breaks to corporations that want to ship jobs overseas, we want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the united states of america. [applause] and by the way, we've already cut taxes for businesses eight

times since i've been president -- eight times. and we want to do more, because small business owners are the lifeblood of this economy. [applause] right now, as we speak -- as we speak, there's a bill in the senate that would cut taxes for small businesses, would help them get the loans they need to hire again. the members of congress who are here, they already voted on this. they already passed this bill. and by the way, this is a bill that's based on democratic and republican ideas. it's been praised by groups like the chamber of commerce. they never praise me. [laughter] the national federation of independent business. it's a bill that's fully paid for, doesn't add to our deficit. so you would think -- republicans say they're the pro- business party, isn't that what they say?

you would think this is a bill that they would want to pass. and, yet, day after day, week after week, they keep on stalling this bill and stonewalling this bill and opposing this bill. why? pure politics. they're more interested in the next election than the next generation. and that's why they can't have the keys back -- because we need somebody who is driving with a vision to the future. [applause] that's what we've been doing over these last 20 months. we're also jumpstarting a homegrown, clean energy industry -- because i don't want to see the solar panels and the wind turbines and the biodiesel created in other countries. i don't want china and germany and brazil to get the jump on us in the industries of the future. i want to see all that stuff right here in the united states of america, with american workers. and the investments we've made so far are expected to create

800,000 jobs by 2012 -- 800,000 jobs in an industry of the future. [applause] we want to create the infrastructure for the future -- not just roads and bridges -- but also the broadband lines and the smart grid lines that will ensure we stay competitively on top for years to come, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs all across the country in the process. so that's our plan to create jobs right here in america -- not just short term, but long term. but the fact is, most of the members of the other party voted no on each and every one of these initiatives. no on tax cuts to small businesses. no to clean energy jobs. no to the railroad and highway projects. now, i want to point out that doesn't stop them from showing up at the ribbon-cuttings. [laughter and applause] john, you notice that?

they'll be voting no -- no, this is obama's -- no, we don't believe in recovery, we don't believe in all this. and then you show up at that ribbon cutting, and they're all there right in the front. cheesing and grinning. [laughter] sending out press releases. [laughter] so a few weeks ago, the republican leader of the house was asked, what's your jobs plan if your party takes control of congress next year? he said, well, you know, our number one priority -- he was asked what's your jobs plan -- your number priority is to repeal the health care bill. now, this is a bill that makes sure that insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you've got a preexisting condition, makes sure that young people can stay on their parents' insurance till they're 26, provides a 35 percent tax

credit to small businesses that are doing the right thing, giving their employees health care, makes sure that companies can't drop you when you get sick. now, i have no idea why you would want to repeal that in the first place, but i sure don't understand how repealing it would create jobs, unless it's for some folks in the insurance company who are being hired to deny you your claims. jobshat can't be a real plan. now, look, i may be wrong. maybe they know something i don't, or no other economist or expert understands. and if you think that's a good idea, then you should vote for them. but i've got a different view. the health insurance reform we passed isn't just preventing insurance companies from

denying you coverage -- it's making the coverage that you got more secure, and is ultimately going to lower costs for all americans. and one of the most important things we can do to reduce our budget deficit is to get control of health care costs. these guys don't have a plan for that. they just have a plan to say no because they're thinking about the next election instead of the next generation. and that's the choice that we're going to be making in this next election. the choice in this election is between policies that strengthen the hand of the special interests or strengthen america's middle class. they want to repeal health care -- we're not going to let it happen. we want to move forward. they pledged to repeal wall street reform. here we've got the biggest

financial crisis since the great depression. everybody knows, having looked at it, that the incentives on wall street were skewed and people were doing crazy things with other people's money, making huge, risky bets and then expecting taxpayers to bail them out if it didn't work out. so after all the hardship we've gone through to repair this economy, you'd think it would be common sense to say, let's have some basic rules of the road in place to ensure that a crisis like this doesn't happen again. but what did the other party say? no. they want to go back to the status quo that got us into this same situation. the reforms we passed protect consumers and responsible bankers and responsible business owners. that's what the free market is supposed to be about -- setting some basic rules for the road so that everybody can compete -- not on how to game the system, but how to provide good service and good products to customers.

make sure that mortgage companies can't give you a mortgage that you don't understand. make sure that credit card companies can't jack up your rates without providing you some notification -- common sense stuff. but they want to repeal it because they're more interested in the next election than they are in the next generation. and that's the choice that we will face in this next election. if the other party wants to keep on giving taxpayer subsidies to big banks, that's their prerogative. but that's not what america is about. that's not going to move us forward. i'll give you another example. we had a law in place when i took office in which the government was guaranteeing student loans, except they were

going through financial middlemen who were taking out billions of dollars of profits issuing the loans. but the loans were guaranteed, so they weren't taking any risks. they were just making billions of dollars of money. we said, well, that doesn't make sense at a time when young people are trying to get to college. so what we're going to do is we're going to cut out the middle man. we've added tens of billions of dollars to the student loans program. more than a million young people are going to get help that wouldn't otherwise get help because of the decision we've made. [applause]

>> thank you. >> people are obviously on their way back and i apologize for interrupting the secret protocol of the senate commerce committee, because -- but there is a interesting witness in front of us. we run into this in so many areas, mortgage fraud, people call up and the company does not, and they go on paying.

it is just everywhere. it is always allowed in given freedom by something called small print. i want to know from your point of view if you think it is a deceptive think inherently or in cases of specific uses and how on earth can you or the user tell the difference? >> i believe the commission has had small print issues going back to even before the internet. it in the small print you have material terms, important terms to the consumers, or they are clicks away with the consumer cannot possibly find them, or a reasonable consumer cannot find them, they are inherently deceptive and unfair and we're going to go after people for doing that. and then thinking through the architecture of where we would

like to see companies go, in our report we are thinking about a small box. we're not quite there yet, but the idea of a small box with the material terms in there that the consumers have to say is that it cannot get away with burying things in the fine print. >> how should be formatted? >> in a way that are reasonable consumer, someone on the internet, a coal miner for west virginia who goes on the internet from time to time understands the meaning of that. >> isn't there. whenn't there a point people fail to physically read small print? >> there is a reason why in contracts, some contracts -- some clauses are buried in the

fine print. this is not the practice of the best companies. we had one case involving a company that had acknowledged in its pleadings that it was responsible for 6 billion pop-up ads to consumers, 6 billion pop- up ads. and there was some sort of warning multiple clicks away, but i don't think a single consumer consented to downloading software that downloaded pop-up ads until we shut the company down. even senator dorgan could see, he made this sort of. about the unsubscribe notice at the bottom of the mess. one of the things we want to do is have this baked into the interactions that companies have with consumers and though what -- in a way that consumers can clearly understand it, and we

hope the companies do it themselves. if they do not, we will work with you to craft legislation. >> when you ask large and successful companies who were riding the waves of success and popular demand to do something on a voluntary basis which they do not want to do, do they generally not do it? >> i think it is different critic different responses by different companies. a lot of companies recognize that their brand is enhanced if they are not doing things that are not in a gray area. some companies, and you have to push and prod to get them to do the right thing, and then some companies just do not. we brought a major case against sears for data mining without giving consumers notice. they just didn't know -- they were taking it without the permission of consumers.

it include a prescription drug information and other personal information. it depends, but having these hearings is enormously important in moving companies board into doing the right things. >> you referred to the humification/opt-out question and you seem to come out in favor of opt in. >> the most important thing is clear notice to consumers. not everyone on the commission chairs where i am, it is probably a majority. i think ought to in a generally protect consumers -- often in generally protect consumers better than opt out in those circumstances. i do not think it undermines a

company's ability to get information that it needs to advertise back to consumers. and the entire commission believes that if you're dealing with sensitive information, for changing the privacy policy that has to be off in -- opt in. >> if you wait for the opt out, then they have already been had. >> speaking hypothetically, but if you -- if the company says i'm going to not share your information with any other companies or any of our up delays, and then they decide to change their policy, most consumers will not read that policy. why would they? you have to give them a clear way to opt into your new policy. with respect to sensitive information like medical records and banking records, the

privacy level is so important because this is the kind of information you do not want circulating around on the internet. i think the whole commission agrees. that they should be a hot tin -- i think the whole commission agrees that they should be a opt in approach. >> selling information to third parties it can use that information to create profiles for potential employers, is that fair? >> it would be something we would want to take a close look at. if your staff has any instances of policies like that, please send our way. >> people often say that parents should do it this and set their remote so that kids can now watch such and such on

television, and all kinds of things. but secondly, the responsibility of the consumer -- that is the argument i heard last night at the dinner table. and i did not like it. people have the responsibility. they are entering into a situation. they note that it is a complex world. therefore they should take all of that very seriously. i think that is asking the impossible of the average user. >> i agree with that. i will say this, most of the cases that we abroad, they had not given clear -- we are not at the level of get where every company even gives consumers clear notice that they can make clear choices. most of the cases we have broad involved instances where the disclosures or the use of the information was in the fine print that was designed to ensure that consumers would not find it.

the best companies want to make these things clear. i think that we need to ensure that other companies moved to that level. >> cake, chairman leibovitz. >> thank you, chairman rockefeller. >> our second panel is the vice- president of software technology at apple. the chief technology officer of facebook. the privacy engineering lead at google. the director of information policy studies at the cato institute. the senior vice president of public policy, and privacy officer of at&t.

and a professor from the annenberg school of communication who has been before us many times. if you confine your seats. and sure that they have plenty of water. let me go in the order of the way it of the -- of the way that appears before me. ipple of apple. >> good afternoon, members of the committee.

i am vice-president for software technology at apple. thank you for asking me to testify about our approach to a consumer privacy. apple shares are concerned about privacy and we are deeply committed to protecting the privacy of our customers. we're committed to providing our customers with clear choice over their information. for instance, as part of our service, we provide our customer with easy to use tools to let them control the collection and use of location data on all devices. i would also point out that apple does not share our customers' private debt or selling customers' private data to third parties for their marketing purposes. we have provided an explanation of our privacy practices in the

written testimony. let me emphasize that you points about letting consumers control hot applications using collected data. in addition to a published privacy policy, it is very helpful to have privacy features actually built and designed into the devices and we would like to describe some of our innovative practices in this area. apple does not allow any application to receive device location information without the user's permission. if an application was to use a device application, it must get the consumer's explicit -- explicit consent. the dialog box is mandatory and no one is permitted to override

it. only after the user has app bezed it will be athe allowed to use location information. let's say that you're looking for restaurant. you load and happen but it needs to know where you are in order to help. before it receives any device location information, the software promise you that they would like to use your current location. it presents two options. do not allow or ok. it will send an encrypted location data to apple to determine which restaurants are nearby. in this example, information about the devices actual location is only transmitted to the third-party application after the consumer expressly consents. apple has built of master location service switched into r

i o s global operating system which makes it extremely easy to opt-out in tally of location- based. our latest devices are not this playing an icon at the top of the screen near the battery indicator. it reminds to the user that look passion -- location data is being shown to their application. they are also able to see a list of every project every application they are authorized to locate -- access their location information. you can see which have used your location information within the last 24 hours, and turn it off individually for each application.

i should point out as well that not using these location services does not impact the use of the devices. with more than 3 billion applications down loaded, many people have experienced this process. we believe it is a simple and direct way to keep customers in control of their data. in closing, let me say again that apple is strongly committed to giving our customers clear notice, a choice, and control over their information. we believe that our products do this in simple and elegant ways. we share the committee's concerns about the collection and misuse of all customer data, particularly location data, and appreciate the approach -- being able to talk about that this afternoon. >> excuse me, please. when you say they go up to a certain place and click and they

are out, where is that place on their computer? is it at the top or the side? >> we have a setting menu where you set everything about your phone from how bright it is to including the location settings. if you tap on location settings on that page, it immediately tasty to a page with a switch that says location services, on, off. >> where do they have to go to tap said that they can get that choice? >> yes, on your home page, there is an app called settings. >> it is at the bottom right? >> it is on your home page. their various -- there are various apps, one is called

settings. that takes you to the place where location services can be turned on or off. it is possible, if you could send me a picture. >> i would be happy to show you. >> said it and i will pay the mail. >> i would be happy to do that. >> brett taylor, chief technology officer. >> thank you very much. thank you other members of the committee. i am the chief technology officer of facebook. thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the committee. facebook is a service that gives people the power to connect and share with one another. it establishes and strengthens relationships that strengthen our lives. we're proud to announce that

more than 500 million people around the world are actively using facebook. we also remind ourselves that the people who use face back lie at what the heart -- why part of what we did. first, facebook and other social networking technologies are sharing information and building communities. in just a few years, the internet has been transformed from a useful -- into a powerful means of connecting with others in creating communities that better the lives of others. since the creation and a college dorm room, facebook has contributed to this transformation to a worldwide community spending over 180 companies. it has been an invaluable education tills, allowing people to connect for myriad purposes for charitable purposes and in the political realm for

grassroots organization and for local community building. when we reached 500 million users, b.s. people to share their experiences with the services. some of the stores are intimate and personal. one person, a mother in phoenix, credits her status message with her being diagnosed with breast cancer in order to treat the disease. she became an on-line prevention advocates. other stores have broader significance. the 2008 presidential lesson has been called the facebook election. .

to join the site, to use our tools, or engage in life. it is the people who use facebook that drive all our product decisions. recent changes provide examples. in my written testimony, i highlight for reasons. the privacy tool, contextual tool, one-click tool, and dad permissions. i'm happy to discuss any and all i want to highlight the

important economic growth supported by the people who use facebook and the companies that innovate by building on the platform. the growing fatality of the incident makes facebook the experience possible for our users without them ever sharing identifiable information with advertisers. facebook is a u.s.-based company. 70% of yours are outside the night in states, more than 80% of the employees are located here -- 70% of a vusers are outside the united states, but more than 80% of the employees are located here. there is an entire economy around the platform. 1 million applications are available on the platform. some are filled with businesses that employ hundreds of people and make hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. the new york times wrote an

article about a leading games the lawful -- developer called zynga. it now has 400 job openings. the company has been valued at over $4.5 billion. another phase of developer was acquired by electronic arts for $400 million in 2009. these are to the largest success stories in the facebook platform economy. i want to emphasize the real power base lies with the individual to use this service to connect and share with their friends. we are proud of the service we provide. using innovative debilities, facebook will facilitate a more personalized and engaging experience. i am grateful for the opportunity to be here. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. taylor. next on my list is mr. --

professor whitten. >> thank you. i devoted my career as an academic and as google's lead privacy engineer to one primary goal, making it intuitive, simple, and useful for internet users. this is the central challenge of privacy engineering. be services on the internet constantly evolve. viable news services change the way that we interact with each other and use information. these services, built in part from the information that providers learned from their users, offer the value. many are offered for free. they have been good for our economy. in 2009 alone, google of online advertising generated a total of $54 billion of economic

activity for american businesses, website publishers, and nonprofits. that includes 9000 billion dollars the week gave to advertisers lester. -- that we gave to appetizer's last year. our biggest asset is our users a trust. it enables us to better match searchers with the information that they seek to fight off those that would scam our users are undermine the usefulness of our search results, and to create new search results. we focus on building transparency, a user control, and security in to our project. we constantly reiterate to make sure that we are honoring our users' privacy expectations and security needs. because our user'tress is so

critical, it is important -- user's trust, it is important we do not fill their information. i urge you to look at google.com/dashboard. it was developed to provide users with a one-stop come easy to use control panel for the personal information associated with their google account from gmail to sear ch and 20 other google products. with the board, users can see, and it come and delete the data stored with their individual accounts. she can change her privacy settings, see what she is sharing, and click into the settings for each individual product. i was adamant woman crated the dashboard that we not make it seem to do when we created the dashbvo -- i was adamant will we created the dashboard that in

not just a privacy tool. we took a similar approach with their advertising network. our preference manager allows users to opt out of ad targeting and to learn about our privacy practices. equally important, it allows users to the the categories that they will see, select new interest categories, and remove ones that do not match their interest. by offering this service, we hope to get more people to understand and confirm the privacy setting specific interestingly, for every one user who opt out, we see four edit their provinces and 10 of you the page into nothing. -- edit their preferences and 10 view their paid and do nothing. we are proud of the track record.

despite our best efforts, we have made mistakes. in may, googled disclosed that we have mistakenly included code and the software on our street cars that gave information sent over a wi-fi network from open, and in crowded networks. to be clear, google never used the mistakenly collected data in any product or service. there is no disclosure of any personal information to any party. as soon as he learned about the incident, we disclose what had happened and acknowledged armistead. newell is working hard to address this incident. -- google is working hard to address this incident. we are taking this matter seriously. we are announcing the changes we will make. at the same time, we continue to develop industry leading privacy and security tools. we recently launched in curveted

search, allowing users worldwide to protect their search query from snooping or interception. we are the only major web mail provider to encrypt all e-mail traffic by default. this is a proactive approach that my team brings to our jobs. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you. now mr. jim harbper from the cato institute. >> thank you for inviting me to testify. i appreciate you educating the public. my 21 page, single spaced written testimony is only a brief glance at the many issues that are involved in privacy regulation. suspect the one page executive summary is what will benefit you

and your staff in the early examination of the issue. it says that privacy is a complicated human history. when people talk about privacy, and -- they may mean security from identity fraud. they may mean a distaste for being marketed to in the crash commercialism. privacy refers to control of personal information. that is having the ability to selectively reveal things about yourself and you kingcraft the image you portray to all the different communities the you interact with. as he had seen in discussion today, the online environment is new and different. many people do not know how to control information about themselves. it will not be easy. i may play skunk of the garden party when i say that i have doubt of the capacity of fair

information practices and regulatory solutions to solve these problems and deliver privacy. fair information practices have a long history, nearly 40 years ago there are many good practices -- 40 years. there are many the practices. there are many different data practices that matter in different degrees at different times. blanket use of practice is probably inappropriate and unhelpful. i focused heavily on notice. the failure of noticed over the past decade to deliver privacy. the short notice project is wonderful and fine, but i do not hold out much hope that it will lead to an upwelling of privacy awareness that i think we would like to have. i believe in changing business particles. for to protocols. regulations may prevent new

protocols and new ways of interacting on line from coming into existence. this would be a pity. it would deny all of us the next generation of innovations. the companies represented by michael panelists i think should always be met by competition. companies can use the regulatory process to lock out competition from a foreclosed new business models in privacy problematic. and what the change had to really briefly and talk about an issue i know is on the minds of many people. that is targeted advertising. targeted advertising is sensitive. it represents a loss of control over personal information. it also objectifies consumers as such rattigan treating them as human beings who laugh, cry --

rather than treating them as human beings to laugh, cry, and fall in love. i understand the concern. it is not motivate me. i want to talk about my experience as the operator of a small website. i ran a website called washingtonwatch.com. it had about 1.6 million visitors last year. i am aware of the passions unemployment compensation generate. i run the site in my spare time. i filled with my own funds. i joke that is the reason why i do not have a vote in my driveway. it might be the reason why i do not have a driveway. i run google ads help defer the cost. amazon has a critical going -- a pretty cool thing going on right now. i have tons of features that i want to add it to washingtonwatch.com. i decide to add new features when i feel like i have the

money to do it for the i pay my web developers about twice what i make per hour to work on a site. my sob story does not matter. i stand in the shoes of many small website operators to choose whether they are going to add more content and features a some whether they can afford it. . . . . viable and can textual ads and non- contextual, blanket advertising. curtailing targeted advertising in the name privacy involves trade-offs with other importing consumer issues. thanks again so much to testify. i am happy to answer your questions. >> miss dorothy attwood.

>> thank you for providing at&t the opportunity to participate. for the 2 billion of us to use the internet, the possibilities are endless. there is a venue for almost every type of interaction. we only have looked at the possibilities. digital signals sent from the rubble in haiti and able to relief workers to locate survivors. -- in a bold relief workers to locate survivors -- enabled re lief workers to locate survivors. these and bandages are not guaranteed. the internet random information shared willingly among the users. the continued growth of the internet is dependent upon earning in maintaining the trust of internet users, that their

information is being shared in a way they intend. when i appeared before this committee two years ago, i articulated the four pillars of all of at&t's' approach to privacy. we continue to believe that these can be the foundation for a privacy regime applicable to all entities. we are even more convinced we have a consistent set a standard use throughout the internet. last summer from at&t -- last summer, at&t had a 45 the previous period and has in the privacy policy. in consolidating 17 policies into long, we recognize the when it came to privacy, our customer's expectations are the same regardless of the nature,

let alone the credit for classification of the services they purchase. they want their privacy to be respected. they regard the information they share as theirs to govern. at&t has emphasized privacy by design as a means of increasing transparency. these are built on at the asset. earlier this year, we added an advertising choices link on to our website that explains our use of what customers search for on yp.com to target as to users elsewhere, it tells them how to opt out, and how to locate the interest profile manager we developed. we launched an advertising social networking recommend a site. users can not join this information site without first establishing their privacy

preferences . would provide additional notice about information sharing on the site three separate hoehling. other industry groups have made important progress in standardizing the user's experience so they can better understand the use of their online affirmation for targeted advertising. we have unified the presentation of the nai tel tool and adopted an icon that will be used. at&t is building on this momentum by working with better advertising. we believe the industry should press even further and develop a trust framework that enables the permission. with this framework, and cities throughout the ecosystem could cooperate in a way to honor the provinces of the customer. such an approach can be likened to bacon's where consumers are

not involved in the details on how they handle the actual money transfers but they have every confidence that their money goes where they intend. as detailed in my testimony, a groundbreaking work is already under way. it is easy to misinterpret teen the ease at which information is shared -- misinterpret the ease at which information is shared. it is about the creation and maintenance of an on-line identity. consumers want control over the sharing of that identity protoco. it is beyond question that consumer affirmation is the bedrock of online advertising that feels a great deal of internet innovation. at the same time, we need to address the fundamental issue of

how to preserve customer confidence and trust. government and industry must take the step of moving beyond the system of notice to a truly consumer center framework for information framework that will grow. thank you. >> thank you very much. finally, prof. of joseph turow, we welcome you back. -- professor turow, we welcome you back. >> thank you for providing me the opportunity to contribute. >> you are still a little hard to hear. that is because you are off the end of the table. >> i like to highlight for

appointed by written testimony. the first is we have a whole new world here. chairman rockefeller, i think your opening statement is of a vice what is going on. it used to be the media firms segment of large populations through media outlet. today a detailed level of knowledge about people in the haters are being used in ways that were unheard of a few years ago. it is common to buy the right to deliver an added to a person with specific characteristics at the precise moment that the person both a web page. through cookie matt activities, an advertiser can buy the right to reach someone on an exchange to the advertiser knows from previous contacts and is not tracking around the web. -- now checking around the web. claims of anonymity change the meaning of of and will anonymity."

-- meaning of the word "anonymity." we live so much of our lives in the digital arena. if they tu know i if theyrow, -- if they know i am joseph's turow, there preventing me with views of the world. we have companies that are contributing. they can to beat? said they holds that can create quite a detailed picture. we do not know it. we do not give our permission. it may even harm our reputation. reputations are being created here. people care a lot about data collection that know what is going on. research shows that in large

proportions, american adults do not understand how the new data base marketing process that takes place behind their screens work. over and over, privacy policies do not help. i hate to be negative, but i am very concerned that the box we are talking about could bring the kind of problems that we heard about regarding privacy. it is clear to me that newer tools sometimes called-ford are counterproductive. -- called dashboards are counterproductive. the reason they are counterproductive so far is that they provide visitors with the incorrect impression that they fully revealed the information advertisers use to address them on the side. -- sites. i would like to ask the googlers prison since -- google resistive

if they are limited. it also shows that americans know their activities are being followed on line and are uncomfortable and concerned about it. a recent survey showed emphatically that americans do not want a situation where content is tailored for them based on the use of their data without their knowing it. the situation they do not want is getting worse. i would suggest that the emerging digital world raised consumer protection issues. when companies try people without their knowledge, sell their data without the knowledge and then decide whether they are targets or waste, we have a social problem. if it is allowed to fester, customers realize how it affects them and the offers they get,

we are in a situation. the supermarket will get even more disconcerted -- get them even more disconcerting. it uses information with abandon . the data is being sliced and diced decreed reputations that they do not know about them. people own their data, have a right to know where their data is used, and to not have to worry when they travel through the media world that their actions will cause them on wanted social discrimination regarding what they later see and hear. i suggest that the congress recognizes that certain aspects of this new world raise serious issues and act with that in mind. one path and maybe -- one pact

may be to limit the amount of data. some organizations resist such organizations. in the face of the widespread concerns, a level of regulatory playing field will have the opposite effect. it will increase public trust and set the stage for new forms of commercial competition. thani thnak the committee for inviting me. -- i think the committee for inviting me -- i thank the committee for inviting me. >> thank you. i appreciate your having this hearing. it is a very important topic. i am sorry i was not able to be

here for the first panel. the vote slid backward. here we are. i appreciate all the members of this panel coming forward. professor turow, i appreciate your comment now provocati. right now there is a lot confusion and a lot of anxiety among the public at large about what power they have over the collection of information and over their lives in the end and how it always managed. -- it all is managed. it is not just the commercial component. the information being collected sometimes might be incorrect. it might be out of context. it may be correct and in context the last longer in the

marketplace than people may want it to without the ability to explain it or to make up for some youthful transgression our whatever it is that the information represents. it could be meant for a specific audience and is understood if it is specifically and from the distributed. that can lead to harm and loss of job opportunity. let's say you had cancer -- have a cancer patient fact the case through a support network of cancer patients and somehow that enters in through an e-mail or reaches some other source and it winds up becoming a source of herbal cures being sent to her or other information. that may not be the way that cancer patient was to leave

their life. it may not be the way they want to be identified for and may be that the insurance rates go up because the information gets out. who knows. the bottom line is this. we sat on this committee. i remember these conversations 10 years ago when we tried to pass a broad based distribution of privacy rights. we could that do it. we have learned a lot since then about what happens. i would like to ask a few specific questions regarding some of that. let me ask you, professor turow, what do you think about this and no harm no foul school of enforcement? does that do all we need to do? does that provide an adequate standard by which we should live? >> i suggested in my talk, harm is a very difficult concept. sometimes, we can find harm.

sometimes we can quantify harm. i think the law would like to define harm and that we can quantify monetarily. we are dealing with issues of a reputation here. i would even argue we are dealing with issues of respect and social cohesion. we have to go a bit further and look at harm in the historical way the we thought about it. >> and see if i can pin that down. mr. taylor, you have crossed the five and a million users at facebook worldwide. did 500 million users at facebook worldwide. how many people work on privacy issues and design? >> everyone at facebook for some privacy issues and design. like security, privacy is a central part of our planning and design process. during every aspect of the product design and prototype process, privacy is a aspect of

discussion. what is it accurate or inaccurate that at facebook that when a privacy concern mounts for there is a modification of service somehow that you change your practice that can increase the amount of informations that users share with others? users then expressed concern about that, modify the practice somewhat, but the press is sort of repeat itself. -- but the process sort of repeat itself. -- repeats itself. >> we never retroactively change people's settings. there have been point where we have transition from one set of -- i will give you one practical example. when facebook started expanding from college networks to the whole world, there is no notion

of -- everyone signed up as a member of the university. we needed to expand the notion to beyond universe city. we bay networks for entire countries. everyone from turkey to join state turkey regional network. at some point, it became a meaningless distinction. sharing with the entire country of turkey is roughly equivalent to everyone in the world. when we got rid of regional networks and we are modifying it, every user went through a blizzard or they got to choose the new settings. that type of setting had gone away. >> if you change your settings, what happens to the old information? how long is that correct? >> what do you mean by "old information?" >> is a lost forever if you change it?

is it stored in your mechanisms? can still operate and use it? >> any information that you publish to face the, you can remove. anytime you change your privacy setting, he can easily change it later. it applies to all the information that you have published. >> do you still have the information? even though it has changed in terms of the internet? do you have that stored? >> the privacy settings? >> whatever was there before. >> if the user posts a 02 facebook, we retain the photo a unless they choose to delete it. >> if they deleted, it is deleted from your storage? >> yes, that is correct. >> and all other information bikeways -- likewise? >> we tried to take a practical approach to privacy. today if you went to your facebook privacy page and you

said your privacy setting to "friends only" it did not only apply to all future things you shared with of things you previously shared as well. we tried to make it easy to not only enable people to change your settings but to change decisions they made in the past as well. >> i know i've gone over my time. do you have the ability to c ull from that information? is there some formula by which you can commercially scan the information that is fair and make some kind of determination? >> our focus at facebook is the information users have they decided to share in their profile. one thing that is fairly unique is that it is a service for sharing. people put information on their profile because they want to share it with their friends. >> i understand that. do they want to share with you in a way you can cull it and

use it for systems analysis of all or broadbased breaking people up in two categories of putting them out a marketing? do you do that? >> their two parts to that question in my head. i want to make sure it is clear. facebook never sells data to third parties and their cells that said to advertisers kah. other aspect regarding advertising, ads targeted on face but to the information you to put on your profile. if you remove it from your profile, as a longer be targeted to that. [unintelligible] >> thank you. >> senator caswelmacaskill.

>> i anniston advertising makes the internet work and it makes it free. i am a little spooked out at the way this is developing. imagine how an ordinary american would react if someone took a camera and followed them around the store. the doing everything they were buying, watching them make selections between this make a pandemic of the room make -- make selections between this or that. i was sitting up here for fun.

i could go and search for something i did not really want to now. i went on the web and i looked up a foreign suv. i am not in the market for a foreign suv. if i would buy it, it could be an american suv. it then i went on another web site within 10 minutes of i did it and guess what it asked? there were a bunch of ads for four and suvs. that is creepy. -- for foreign suvs. that is pp. someone is following what i in doing. if this is taken to the logical conclusion, we could kill the golden goose here. i would ask, especially those at google, i know you guys are using algorithms to read e- mails.

it is my understanding you are doing it internally only. could you address the issue that i am talking about, you are reading e-mails internally and using information to predict marketing behavior? >> certainly. this is a really good question. i very much sympathize with the feeling of being followed. i think it is a very important one for us to address. specifically in the case of e- mails, let me clarify that google's system are not attempting to do any prediction of marketing behavior based on the content of e-mails. gmail has always done was take the same systems that scan an e- mail an order to identify whether it is spam and have the

same system trigger off key word. when i asked to purchase something to a gmail ad, i was e-mails with my mother a couple of summers ago. sue is complaining about the heat. i offer to buy here in airconditioner and my e-mail. as those sitting there looking at the e-mail i had just sent in gmail, because it had the keyword "air-conditioner" there was an ad for air-conditioner next to it and i clicked on it and bought one. that was shown purely because that keyword was in the mail message i was reading that of them. that is a transient thing. that is not used to build any kind of profile with me. it was purely something that

happened in a moment right there. >> let me ask this. isn't it true that there are coupons they print out on the internet and you take them into a store and use them and imbedded in the bar code is a whole bunch of affirmation about you? -- information about you? do you think the consumer has a right to know about that? they may be aiding to additional things they do not want? do not you see that as a privacy issue that you need to address? i do not think most americans get that is what is going on. i think they think the bar codes so the vendor what they are getting. >> this is not a practice that google engages in. to your larger question, absolutely. i think the challenge for all of us and that i take personally is

to try to make these things not mysterious for people. a lot of the stress comes from the fact that people experience these things as happening behind the scenes in a way they do not have any control over. while we have really focused on and try to do is to find innovative ways to push that understanding of what is happening to the foreground. this is really what we are trying to do. we were pushing for the ads to make it an engaging interface to get to the manager, some people would want to see what interest categories where associated with their cookies, to participate state-controlled over it. >> i know i am over time. we are used to people poking

around our lives year. -- here. it to be a great boon for office and research. my staff from a printout and brought me a print shop of a company you can go to the internet and to pay them $5 it will tell you a whole bunch of stuff about you. it'll tell you where you like to shop. it will tell you where you live for their how many bathrooms -- where you live, how many bathrooms you have, whether or not you are wealthy, how old your mother is. the folks that have been making a lot of money in offices and research, the internet will be a big help. there will be allowed to find out a lot more stuff for five bucks than they typically have spent thousands. the are kind of use to an invasion of privacy. we sign up for an invasion of privacy.

we embrace it willingly. i do think that you all need to really address the phenomenon i talk about. as the american public catches on, and they are born to be very happy. thank you. >> thank you. -- they are not going to be very happy. thank you. >> thank you. members were doing something to improve our stalker laws. i hope all of your companies will support these changes. i think it'll pass the house today. the senate always takes a little more time. i think would be helpful to have the support of your compan ies, something that goes beyond your responsibility.

my first question is of you, mr. taylor from facebook. i appreciate the work you are doing. i have raised concern about having a more acceptable safety information on the facebook pages. as i know from my 15-year-old daughter, a lot of them kids are using it. -- a lot of kids are using it. i know you had your privacy button. if there is a way to have a more easily extendible safety information so kids know what to do, if they suddenly get a request of a friend from someone who they do not know, could you respond to that? >> we recently launched a safety center that is accessible. i think we as a company share your concern about safety throughout the company.

it is something we think about it every product that we launch. , to highlight it to the things i think are really important. this is a really subtle issue. one thing we focused on is conceptually giving the people who use facebook the ability to report suspicious activity or offensive contacts. the route the site, there are living for people to report content that they thinking from someone who is bullying or perhaps predatory in some way or any content that they feel it is inappropriate. it is a very important issue. it is not highlighted in some of the discussions i have heard. at the time someone is experiencing something suspicious, giving them the ability to report that and our teams to receive information and disable accounts as it is relevant is very important.

we work with every single state attorney general to run their list of creditors against our accounts, disabling a very large amount of accounts and reporting back to authorities. that only goes so far. we hold ourselves to a much higher standard than that. having those in line report linked is a very important part of maintaining a safe environment. >> i appreciate that. i hope we can continue to work on this issue to see if we can highlight the safety list so the kids know what they can do. these are just kids. the more we can make it relevant with a button that says if you are worried or scared about something as opposed as privacy, i think that would trigger them more to look at it. we can continue working on that tehema in may, for did on that. -- working on that. in may, we learn that they will come out photos for the math

teacher. i exchanged letters with your ceo, eric schmidt. could you talk about the outcomes of what i consider a serious privacy violation? >> we are still conducting are very thorough follow-up investigation. i am not a member of the team focusing on that it directly. i will be somewhat limited in what i can reply to. we have committed to communicating publicly what changes we will make to ensure that this kind of mistake is not happen again. we take this very seriously. >> i appreciate that. >> you are just figuring out how to change things so it does not happen again? >> the investigation is still out there -- open. >> appeared appear file sharing

is not often discussed when kids use these program. -- peer-to-peer out turn is often not discussed with kids using the program. all the company's data goes out into the internet. they became victims of identity theft this in a want to comment on what we should be doing? we have a bill to try to address it. who no takers? mr. harper, thank you. >> i've not been on a peer-to- peer networking many years. it calls for better consumer awareness and education. that is the hard way but the only way to go out and. a good parenting is always at

the center of protecting children online. you are not want to come up with a magical technology solution. >> as a parent who did not even know what lol meant when out as a question in a campaign event, i do not know every parent can know everything about what is going on. that is why i suggest you look at our bill. we are trying to give adults on the computer more information about what their kids have put on there so that they can maybe stop it. that is what we are trying to do i have to step out for something and then i will be back. >> that was dramatic. >> thank you. i have a couple of comments and questions. the first is to mr. taylor. how would you notify when he made these changes? you describe the new security component. how'd you notify your customers?

>> there are a variety of mechanisms and depending on the magnitude of the change led me start -- change. >> let's start with the latest one. >> i've not directly working on this. excuse any inaccuracies. we launched its trip from a part of our help center. that is the center support part of our website. we also launched ads to advertise the presence of the new center to our users. >> where would you label this on day importance to your customers? would this be the maximum amount of notification? >> it is sought the maximum amount. -- it is not the maximum amount. some changes to our service will have a prominent notice at the top of your facebook page, the interns 0.2 facebook, and -- the

entrance to facebook, the most important. >> thank you very much. i want to take the air conditioning example one step further if i tampa once -- if i can. once the company high has that information, they have a profile on you. i consider some of this leg the catalog business on steroids. you order one catalog and before you know it is 80% of your meal. now you -- mail. now you have ordered it. what happens to the data they have now collected? >> first of all, the air

conditioning company told google it would pay to have this particular ad. then i am reading my e-mail. my e-mail has the word "air conditioner" and it sends me ad. then i click on the ad. i am taking to an advertiser's website. at that time they are after, i no longer dealing with google. i am not talking directly to the advertiser. at the air conditioner in my shopping cart. i give them my delivery address and payment information. the ongoing relationship i may have with the company is established to that transaction. >> but in essence, it started with just air-conditioning in your e-mail. >> that is what triggered the added to the company. they had no information to pursue an ongoing relationship with me until i went to their site and interactive.

>> he made a commitment at that point. when you purchased the unit, the assumption is that your plan to get a lot of stuff from them. >> i did remember for that particular company. and number getting a lot of air- conditione relatesr e-mails. >> the assumption is that one to go on thei -- that once you go n there, that you are in their system. >> there is used in of in or opt out to get promotional e-mails. >> for the company's letter here, -- t hat arthat are here, what one thing would you recommend to increase the level of security and privacy to the users of your facilities?

i use the facility brother. one is at&t, facebook, and google. what is the one thing that should be improved? you tell me you are doing it all right. >> let me comment on that. >> of the radar will go up. the one not be a good answer. -- that will not be a good answer. >> we believe we are adopting the framework that the ftc talked about. we are innovating in the way we are talking to our customers. the one thing we are missing is that we are not honoring each other's customers permissions. every day there are literally millions of customers who use at&t's service is on apple's ihpone go to face it and check their friend sat this info to google where they should go for dinner.

that happened millions of times a day. the customer has to read all of the privacy policies. i am proud of the policy. we worked hard to make it very secure and straightforward. there is nothing that happens to the customer and it goes to at&t and says they want to have their information protected. i cannot honor that across the board. i do believe that is the next phase will me think about demystifying it for the consumer and making it less creepy. we have to work with the industry and pushed the boundaries as saying, when someone says to me i was my information protected in a certain way, they want to protect it. i honor that. google honors me. we give a single unified fade to the customer in terms of their permission. cr>> a want to bring of the

idea of individual consumers exercising control over cookies. could these are the primary way in which the track from site to site. arafat and internet explorer are the most popular browsers. -- a firefox and internet explorer are the most popular browsers. i am a stickler. i delete every cookie, a computer. people can create a blanket rules of of that kind of thing and take a big chunk out of the information. that is one thing consumers can do. >> i know my time is up. >> i think you are right about that. it has to be said that increasingly companies are trying to get around cookie problem. companies are beginning to use first party could ease, because

they know third for the cookies are a disaster. toolbars can be used without any cookies at all. there are some cookies that do not extinguish. there are a lot of ways, registration. if the industry knows that cookies are sometimes how fallible and in danger. -- are sometimes fallible and in danger. " i feel like you feel you are being ignored. -- >> i feel like you feel you are being ignored and that that still on something for you. >> what is it? >> this is his. i wanted to make a point. you indicate -- let's say i am a 55-year-old forster from central montana, and you indicated that

all i have to do is go to the particular click and they will get their capacity to protect themselves. it turned out that your machine here, the particular click is labeled "settings" -- i am getting out of the tree and running in getting this. if i go like this in thoery, i guess what you get -- if i go like this, in theory i get when you gave me. i give my choice. on the other hand, i had to go to that setting. what is the word "setting?" houses goes to mean something? -- ow is that -- how is that supposed to mean something? to you it is very clear.

there is total clarity with all of the and certainty about occasional mistakes. review with all of you uncertainty about occasional mistakes. -- with all of you about and certainly and occasional mistakes. maybe i could eliminate if i spend time on it and get down to the settings anything get 21 taffeta do you see my point? >> i actually agree with your goals of clarity. i can tell you t hat we strive for that in terms of the usability of our devices and finding things like this easily on a device.

it is a challenge. we try to excel at it, actually. one of my point about this particular feature was that i believe that it is important that privacy issues not just be relegated to a privacy policy, that they actually be designed so that they are part of the user interface that the user would encounter normally during the use of their device. . .

>> is your location being tracked? we think that is just as important if not more important. user interface is one of the areas where we are actively innovating. there is more innovation to be done there. >> i do, to au pair >> i agree. >> i am going to say something not entirely unpleasant to you but it surprised me. you are in charge of security and openness for google, and you started out with a three minute lecture on how much money kugel mak google makes.

we all know that. why did you start out on that? i want to say that for the record. he started talking about how successful google is. you have nothing to say? i am going on to mr. taylor. mr. taylor, your privacy policy has the falling -- 'even after you remove information from your profile or delete your account, copies of that information may remain viewable elsewhere." and then it goes on to say " certain types of communications use and other users cannot be removed, such as messages," which are kind of basic. now, it begs the question if a facebook user wants to permanently delete, you gave him

a firm answer -- is gone. this says otherwise. >> i'm sorry. rae yoare you done? is it a proper time? you bring up some of the most subtle issues we deal with and working on a social product. the issue about your data may still be viewable elsewhere -- is important point -- an important point to give people reading that policy are realistic expectation on how information may flow throughout the internet. you may publish your telephone number to your facebook profile and your friend may take that number and copy it into their phone. that interaction came from facebook, and even though you deleted your profile, that information may continue to exist because your friend copied it into their phone. likewise, your friend might take a photograph you published to facebook and printed out and

put it on a collage or on their personal home page because they copied it off of facebook. when you are sharing information with other human beings on the internet, it is not just a technical thing -- it is a social thing. people may choose to do things with that information outside of the things we can control. if i recall the part of the policy you talk about, that is the realistic expectation that we are trying to make sure people using our service understand. regarding, there are some pieces of information that cannot be deleted like messages. we have thought a lot about this. a lot of people use our messaging products like these mammoe-mail. once you send a letter to someone, and it ends up in their hands, you have the social ability to ask for it back, but it is in their hands. when you send someone a message, we consider that piece of information owned by two people,

just because it is provided by the existing conventions that existed with e-mail and even postal mail. so those are very specific instances. the information you shared on your profile is information you can delete permanently. in those instances, we were trying to take a thoughtful approach. >> is it not true that some were, and -- somewhere, and this applies to intelligence agencies, that there is some point that there is a residual place of keeping information that cannot be deleted under any circumstances? >> sir, i cannot speak to what our intelligence agencies do. >> i am asking that to you. >> do you mind clarify your

question? are you asking -- from our servers, when you delete your account, we delete the information associated with your account. >> so there is no backup anything anywhere which retains that? >> the technical systems are complex and there may be back up of some information somewhere due to the complexity of this system. >> what if you are subject to a lawsuit? and you have to go back and pull out that particular email, whatever was? you have to be able to do that, don't you? or you say, we cannot defend ourselves. >> if someone has depleted their facebook account, what mechanisms we have to look up that deleted account? some of this may get into specific details of our infrastructure i am not familiar with.

the spirit of facebook is your information is deleted. these technical systems, due to the technical requirements of making a system that is reliable and available at all times of the day, may mean there are backups in some parts of our system. so i think that is a reality. i am not sure and that specific instance what information would be available. -- in that specific instance. >> i move from my purse and high up in the tree cutting off bridges to a 13-year-old -- from my purse and high up in the tree cutting off branches to a 13- year-old, who is a lonely, and the ability for a predator. we had hearings on this subject, too. i do round tables in my state of west virginia about that subject -- the vulnerability of students, of young people.

they are your future, your present. i do not know how much of your profits come from them, but a lot. and when somebody asked you the question, who is responsible for privacy protection? everybody who works at facebook, everybody who works there is. i found that suspicious and disingenuous. i think companies have to be divided up. and people do not spend all their time on every question that comes before them -- what are the privacy consequences of this? i do not believe what you said. >> that is a fair point. what i intended to say is that the engineers and product managers that develop the products take into account privacy ed every aspect of product design. we have -- at every aspect of product design. >> i accept that.

don't you think there is the possibility of beginning to divide the world into enand users into two categories -- those who know what to expect and how to handle themselves, what consequences are of what they do. i put that group at 50%. and then others who are simply thrilled to be on facebook or on google, whatever, but they are not sure what they are doing, they are not sure the consequences of what they do. they do not know what it means it to have them fall on them or rum. they are innocent -- they do not know what it means to have people follow them. you are being successful and people are signing up like crazy. so why complain?

but there are consequences. there are inherent consequences. the bullying thing is not inconsequential. sexual predators is huge. and it is a part of what you do. if you can defend yourself against this, if you go to the right icons and make the right moves, i suppose you could stay out of trouble. always working is the record. people are tracking you -- always lurking is the record. tople are using new tyou advertise. the word air-conditioning did come up for a certain reason. it was convenient because you were trying to help your mother. in other cases, it may be confusing. my philosophical question -- i

ask the au professor this question. are we dividing ourselves into two classes of people -- people who understand it and can handle themselves on these instruments before us and those who cannot? and those who cannot are paying a price which we do not yet fully understand but which we are beginning to understand and that does get into the abuse and sexual lives and predator that and bullying or misinformation or simply being marketed. it is the same question with senator kerrey. i get telephone calls at our home that are meant to be unlisted numbers. you just hang up. that is an annoyance. it should not occur in american life. but i have no way of stopping it. hence, the question -- can i stop facebook from having

records on me? you say, yes. i am not so sure. >> the larger question is, or becoming two different societies and is not that wrong on something that is this dominant in our culture? >> i think we are becoming multiple level societies for a number of reasons. one is exactly what you say. the people who know and the people who do not know. as i get into the data we have dealt with and people have done research on, i used to believe that a lot of these problems could be solved by education. i no longer believe that everything can be solved by people learning. it is too complex. i find professionals in the field, when i call them to check on things i am thinking about, will not know the answers. reading privacy policies is becoming a scavenger hunt, because not only do you try to make sense of verbiage which is basically understood by the people who created it and not many others, you are also into

links that tell you that other parts of this are related to other companies and they use words like affiliate's that most would not understand. at that level, we have even very intelligent people could not -- that could not make sense of that. on another level, i am concerned we are moving into a world -- and this gets us into television, not just the internet -- because the television is going through the internet. digital tv. we are going to have a situation where people receive the views of the world based upon what others know about them and what they do not know others know about them. it is quite possible, and i have spoken to people who are beginning to think about this regarding marketing, are changing the news profile based upon the parameters that people know about you. as a consequence, that will fit people into certain kinds of reputation and silos. we are not there yet, but we are

defining people's reputations in ways they do not understand. there are multiple levels relating to status, education, relating to so many things that i am beginning to despair that we can ever really understand it. i am beginning to think at -- that some parts of this have to be regulated. not anything, -- not everything, by any means. >> i am so over my time it is embarrassing. senator kerrey, thank you -- senator kerry. >> can you share with us what the recent which was about that saw the distribution of more than 100,000 ipad owners' emails. >> we had an incident recently that was largely called a brute force attack.

it was a security breach by some hackers who were trying to collect information about ipad users. it was an incident where the hackers developed, looked at, develops software in which they word used to capture email addresses -- that were used to capture email addresses that were able to be captured on a website that they had because there was a certain -- well, for the ease of the customer, the website they went to retain information about the email address using the icc i.d. code, which is the serial number of ipad. by writing the code, they were able to randomly seek to capture

the information of that email address and constructed a list of those addresses. we found out about the security reach when a media ouletlet said the attackers had gone to them and proposed there was a vulnerability in the security of the email address. within 24 hours, we fixed that vulnerability. then we tried to assess whether there was additional vulnerability. we concluded that the only information that was potentially vulnerable was the icc-id code, the serial n umbeumber onr sim card. in an abundance of caution, we notify all the purchasers of the ipad 3g device that was a potential exposure of their email address.

to date, we have not seen that information be released in any other way other than to these media outlets. but we are cooperating with the criminal investigation that is looking into seeing how that security breach occurred. >> how oftyeen do you guys get attacked like that? >> it is a daily event. >> for all due -- for all of you? >> we spend millions of dollars on securing the network. it is a constant. it is almost as board in trying to expose a vulnerabilities. -- almost a sport in trying to expose a vulnerability. >> how should people who have their information entrusted to you, what kind of confidence can they have? >> i think that developing the confidence and maintaining the confidence of the security of the network is essential.

in this instance, we were disappointed. we spend millions of dollars establishing very secure networks and since, we have failed our customers. as soon as we understood the nature of the problem, we fixed it and notified them. we also made available new sim cards, if our customers feel they need them. from a security perspective, we do not think they are necessary but we made that available. absolutely -- they demand and expect more. >> you are an engineer. licyo, i am a poic person. >> are you able to tell me where there is the greatest vulnerability in the system for abuse, where in the networks? >> i think you have multiple areas that are capable of

security violations. so you have databases where you store information. you have a physical links were individuals try. you have devices where there is actually efforts to correct devices. i would described in the entire product line, you have multiple areas where you could see security breaches. in fact, we have a lab that is set up just to try to ferret out where those bridges can occur. >> can you tell us what deep packet inspection is? >> essentially, it is the ability to read beyond -- every bit has a certain information. some of it is considered shallow, kind of like addresses. other portions of it are called deep packet which is payload information.

department inspection -- deep packet inspection is the capability to evaluate the shallow and a deep information contained in that bit. it is used in our network for trying to find malware, spyware for purposes of network security. >> is it used for commercial purposes? >> thank you for saying so. i heard previous testimony. no. we do not use it for marketing purposes, which was the subject of interest a couple years ago. in portland, we have gone so far as to it -- and partly, we have gone so far is to explain we will not use it -- important. in the event that there seems to be a desire for the use of that information, we ask our customers first. so, no.

we do deep packet inspection -- like any technical advancement -- there have been discussions about recent issues that have been faced by companies on this panel and each one of those involved the use of technology in a proper way. in this context, the packet inspection, -- deep packet inspection, i do not think there is anybody who has suggested it was used inappropriately. where the issue is the use of that in the way that seemed to offend customers and user expectations. because of that, at&t was not doing that or planning to do that, but we made clear we would not do that without customer permission. >> mr. taylor, in response to the chairman's question about the deleting of information and the storage of information, you repeatedly said that if it is deleted, it is gone.

what if somebody simply deactivates their facebook page? it's there forever, is not it? >> i may get some of these details wrong. this is based on my understanding. when you deactivate your facebook account, for some period of time, you can reclaim it. it is a very frequent that someone might choose to disable their account and then want to restored. so we added that as a feature to our users, where we noticed that many people had biters remorse about a decision to delete the account-- had buyer'' remorse about the decision to delete the account. >> so you do not know whether or

not it stays for several years? >> i do not think it does. i am not familiar with the details. i am uncomfortable giving a specific answer. it is worthwhile to provide one specific bid of context. people published a lot of information to their profile. i recently had a baby, for example, and a lot of the initial photographs are in there. the act of the leading that is significant. just like -- the act of deleting that is significant. that is the motivation for that piece of functionality. i wanted to provide that context. >> fair enough. well, as everybody knows, our counterparts in the house have introduced legislation. we have a cross the jurisdiction on this committee. the consumer protection subcommittee. we will work with the chairman,

and with a goal of trying to build a record, we have reports coming out from the commerce department and the ftc. the question is -- can we come up with a standard, a set of expectations that are more effective? we struggled with this 10 years ago and i guess we failed because the offline-on-line debate -- we got caught up in that and tried to reach may be too far at that point in time. incidently, i am not suggesting you're companies have not made - - your companies have not made significant initiatives to respect people's privacy. all in all, the opt-in, opt-out debate has been resolved pretty effectively. i give you credit for that. it is tricky. that is a long page of complicated conditions, and most people zap to the "i agree"

and off they go. so, i am not sure there is knowledge in a copy emptor component of this -- the caveat emptor component of this. we need to figure if we can get a base line that is simpler and more direct. we look forward to it. thanks for the time. >> go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the day is getting late and i had a few additional questions about the subject that senator kerrey raised -- senator kerry raised about opt-in, opt-out. they can visit -- oodouble agent.com. how do your users learn about

opt-out? how do they learn about it? >> the opt-out link is in our privacy policy documents, which is a link from every page on our website -- linked from every page on our website. we work hard to make sure our privacy policy is in as plain gtheiierand not lenthie than it needs to be. but that is currently the mechanism. i should point out that in the case of i-ads, that is something that we are just starting to do. in fact, we just started earlier

this month to enable i-ads, which are ads that come up in the applications on your iphone. that mechanism may evolves over time as we innovate new ways to incorporate the control over user information into the user interface itself rather than just relying on the privacy policy. >> in your testimony, you indicated that your customers have been caught in a model for location-based privacy disclosures -- an opt-in model for location based privacy disclosures. and an opt-out for apple. is that right? >> um, i think what you said is correct. >> you can clarify lat