watch live gavel-to- gavel coverage every minute. live on c-span, c-span radio, and street and online at c- span.org all beginning august 27. this week on "communicators," and discussion on the role of states when it comes to privacy and the internet. our guest is doug gansler. >> doug gansler is attorney general of the state of maryland and also the new president of the national association of attorneys general, and he is our guest this week. general gtansler, in your presidency, you chose online privacy as what you wanted to stress. why? >> every president of the attorneys general has a main

focus. the last one i chose human trafficking. it is important to have a theme and expose the of the 49 attorneys general to that issue i thought that privacy on the internet was a critical issue as a bipartisan issue and it affects everybody. everybody, for the most part, will be on the internet, whether at home or the library or at work. and it will be buying and purchasing things and be susceptible to having their privacy rights infringed. we do not look at it as if we're going to indict the internet market or providers. we are trying to have a conversation about where the line between privacy and legitimate business rights of internet providers, we're sure that line be drawn? we want to make sure that consumers are protected in terms of their privacy. most of what we do on the internet is free to the

consumer, but they certainly have a legitimate interest in advertising to us. >> why are you looking at that issue at the state attorneys general level? >> we have become the de facto attorney general -- the defacto police, the attorneys general. we have interaction with myspace, facebook and others all the time. the federal government is focus, as they should become on homeland security, terrorism, those types of issues. local das are focused on street crime, rape, robbery, and murder. and we let the internet providers conduct themselves up to this point. we have started to take a more regulatory role over the internet. >> i want to read an article from our guest reporter this week. in july, she wrote this article. here is the first sentence.

i want to get your reaction. when the obama administration in february rolled out its approach to protecting consumer privacy online, it focused as much on industry self regulation as it did call for consumer privacy protection. >> industry self regulation is essential to it. in the sense that it is a free market. you buy a prague -- you are in maryland and you buy a product in oregon. and the person who sent you the product is fraudulent who has jurisdiction? the local da? the attorney general? but for e-bay, if people keep sending fraudulent products, nobody is going to use e-bay anymore. they have an interest in regulating their own site to make sure it works. the government also has an interest in regulating fraud

that does occur. it is a dual approach. there are people that cut corners and there are a lot of other interests that come in. for example, protection of intellectual property. you go on to recite a stone and you want to learn how to speak french. you do it will search and four of the five advertisements are for knockoff rosetta stone counterfeit companies in china. we need to protect our consumers from that because they will pay money for those products and not get what they want in return. >> are you hearing from consumers of that privacy is a concern? one thing i have heard from a lot of companies is that they do not see the consumer harm. are you hearing from your concern to winslet this is something that you need to be watching? >> people are very concerned about privacy on the internet. there will look at your personal

e-mail accounts, your jeannie ohm account, -- your e-mail account and a couple that with global maps and so forth and then develop these profiles on you and use that to laser focus their advertising to you. people have concern about that. they're looking at their jeannie ohm accounts and they are worried that they will send out to your computer based on the words. it is not that dissimilar to listening to your phone call and then sending mail to your house based on the content of your call. people are willing to compromise some of their privacy to have access to the internet. the question is whether the invasion of privacy is an appropriate one and an acceptable one. think about going on an airplane every day. we now realize it is okay -- we will let our privacy be invaded by going through a metal detector. the end goal is to make sure the

plane does not blow up. when they put the new x-ray machines income of people wonder, do are really want a video of me naked? now people are starting to be ok with it. but there was pushed back. if there were born to do a strip searches of everybody getting on a plane, that would probably be unacceptable. people are willing to sacrifice some of their privacy for a bigger gain, in other words, go on to the computer and search for anything at their fingertips for free, but not all of their privacy. >> are you attracted to this idea of not allowing consumers to have these ads based on their personal preferences? >> what we have seen is this issue of consumers talking to different companies or to different people. two issues have surfaced. one is the ability to opt out. i do not want to be searched. i do not want to be followed on the internet by this particular

company. and second is transparency. what are they doing with my affirmation? when you buy a product on the internet from someplace that maybe has a brick and mortar facility, or maybe does not, what are they doing with that information? how are they collecting it? are they protecting it from hackers? who are they selling that information to, and for what purpose? that ought to be transparent. you ought to have the ability to opt out of that. you can opt out unless you know what they are born to do with the information. >> can this be done on a state- by-state level? >> it can. it will work most effectively collectively, the attorneys general. -- we work most effectively collectively, the attorneys general. we're helping you get out of foreclosure in all 50 states. collectively, we have that kind

of impact. internet companies like us to get together because they do not want to see 50 different regulations that day after comply with. the federal government is much slower, pretty much on everything, in terms of regulation. if something gets done by the federal government and ribordy agrees it ought to be done. but we have pushed -- everybody agrees it ought to be done. but we have pushed the envelope a little bit more in the technology space because some of the laws are woefully behind for the technology is. i worked on a bill in maryland this year talking about electronic harassment. the only thing dealing with cyber bullying was by e-mail. how many kids are using e-mail? we had to update that to include using text and so forth. >> does marilyn have a unique set of laws as opposed to the of 49 states?

>> no, they do not. and there are different laws regarding different issues, for example, the electronic harassment statute probably looks different than in other states, but the basic principle is the same. what we are trying to do is not just established laws, but more have a dialogue. where is the line between privacy ending and the legitimate business of the internet companies? there are very few things that you paid for without getting product back. you can go on there and it is wonderful. and maybe you want relevant adds. maybe you want ads concerning the truck you just got. that might be something you are much more interested in than and you docycle ad not ride bikes.

people are going to get advertisements. the question for the companies and the consumer is, are those advertisements relevant? they should be. imrick you wrote a letter to larry page of google requesting a meeting and signed by 35 other attorneys general in the country. were you able to affect any change in privacy? >> we had a number of meetings with google. we're working through this process. most of the interaction with the internet companies, the big ones in particular, have resulted in agreements. i do not want to say settlements because they do not get to where we sue them and then we have to settle, although sometimes that has happened with craigslist and others. we have 26-year-old kids in cubicles in san francisco saying, look what i can do. halcro is this? but not really with a concern --

how cool is this? but not really with a concern of the safety of children or privacy laws. we are to develop standards that are ongoing. google does not have a monopoly, not a legal sense, but they do have a monopoly in the pedestrian cents in that everybody uses it. there's a bigger issue concerning them regarding privacy. >> the federal trade commission last week reached a settlement would go over allegations that they violated -- with google, over allegations that they violated a previous settlement. google had to pay $20 million fine. they have $40 million in the bank at the end of 2011. do you feel they have gotten off too easy?

>> i was not involved in those negotiations, so i don't know whether that was a good settlement or a bad settlement. it sounds like they can go to work the next day and shake that off. it is not or drive them into bankruptcy. but we do not want to drive them into bankruptcy. bolt was invented in 1999. -- google was invented in 1999. what is appropriate for goule -- googled to do? that is still being fleshed out. in cases like that, those that are being resolved, those are important. some of us are more active, the attorney general in california being one of them. she started a whole project in her office. she is doing a great job out there.

these are companies that we need to worry about because we are representatives of the people. different attorneys general have different priorities, but we are all consumer advocates. that is our bread and butter. >> would you favor federal privacy legislation? >> that would be much better, absolutely. if the federal government -- have you ever watched c-span or television? these guys cannot agree on anything. it is unlikely that the people on capitol hill would ever come to some sort of agreement. all of a sudden it would become political somehow. but people's privacy should not be political. where that line should be drawn would seemingly be best at the federal level. we could certainly -- we should and we do have enforcement authority. the consumer protection bureau is also getting into this

little bit as well. there will be a lot of different people looking at these issues as it becomes more and more important. this is a great issue. it affects everybody, and it's bipartisan. and somebody said, don't worry. in two years and will be all fakes. to be governed issue. but it really -- you're going to have to pick a different issue. but it really is not. people want to know what they're doing with that information and how they are protecting it and who they are giving it to.

>> and do you support the obama administration's two-pronged approach? meetingsaunching these to try to get industry privacy codes of conduct. >> i think that is the only way to go. this is not an area where the government should make all of the rules. there is a huge role for industry, as they have been doing, to self regulate. facebook pays a lot of people a lot of money to make sure they are secure. if kids start getting taken out of their homes and facebook is compromised in any way, it hurts facebook. i think there needs to be regulation. it is not that dissimilar from the real world. the virtual world in this sense

is the same. there is industry regulation, but also governmental oversight, which i think needs to be part of it. >> this is the "communicator's." this week, the attorney general of maryland, was also the president of the national association of attorneys general. doug gansler, along with our guest reporter, juliani grue nwald. what about for those under 18? should there be special laws included when it comes to privacy? >> many different areas come under it. we have talked a little bit about data collection and dissemination. there's intellectual property protection. there are on-line payments on mobile devices. we will be buying everything with our iphone and turn on our car with our iphone. how is that information

protected? cyber bullying is, in my view, coming under that umbrella in the digital age. yes, we have to look at how to protect people under 18. kids can on top on the phone to each other anymore. the way they communicate is your texting -- through texting and social networks. we need to have rules for them. the issue we have been grappling with for the last few weeks and months is going even lower than 18, which is 13. facebook has 7 million or more kids under 13 on it. how did they get on it? their parents want them on it. the kids are lying and their parents are helping them to lie to get onto facebook. there'll the brothers and

sisters are on it and that is how they communicate in this -- of their older brothers and sisters are on it and that is how they communicate in this world. can we increase the technology to identify these kids earlier answer your and kick them off? or do we of knowledge that is happening and say, you need to have different privacy standards and settings for kids under 13. you ought to have, for example, the same standards that you have on sunday morning cartoons on television for the under 13 crowd. it is a very interesting debate, i think, on how to resolve that. >> why is that your role, or the government's role at some level to police? whether or not kids can go on facebook. isn't that a parental role, just like watching tv? >> parents have a big role on

social networks. but very few people know -- a lot more now do, but not every parent knows how they work. not every parent is privy to their feet -- their child facebook account. the government has a role because we are there to protect consumers. and we are there to protect kids. a 9-year-old becomes the subject of a sexual predator, we are the ones who have to go after them. and we prefer not to have to go after them. we prefer not to have a fertile playground for sexual predators on facebook. for example, with kids been on there that are under 13, you have to make sure that no one over 18 can contact them other than their parents or people designated by them. for example, there teachers or sports kyrgyz. but then how far do you want to go on that? you talk about parents in terms

of privacy and the issues, the issue five years ago was sexual predators. a lot of kids were getting taking out -- getting taken out of the virtual world and being violated. you have very few cases of that anymore. i would argue that is because parents get that and they talk to their kids about that and they say, do not give private information out to people you do not know. education is absolutely essential as a component of it and parents have a huge role in this. >> are there other issues when it comes to privacy and under 18? still major issues? and what has your experience been in maryland? >> cyberbullies in israel. is real.ullie the problem is that the bully is hiding behind the anonymity of

the internet. yes, there have always been bullies on the playground. but you knew exactly who the police was and everybody could see it. -- who the bali was and everybody could see it. it is a huge contributor to suicide in the u.s. ying piece is a big issue. >> if you go to his website, you will find information and resources for parents and children under 18. >> facebook has talked about possibly opening up their side to children 13 and younger. would that make the bullying situation worse? what is your take? >> i have spent an enormous amount of time talking to facebook about this issue.

most people think that kids under 13 ought to be on the streets playing kick the can like we did when we were done -- when we were young. and he would rather not have kids playing video games all day or on facebook. that said, there are 7 million kids on their and growing. the question is how to protect them, how to make sure that it is okay that they are on their and what the parameters are under which they operate on there. will that enhance the amount of cyberbullying that goes on? probably, but you want to make sure that there are avenues to report the cyberbullies in. parents will have to educate their kids. if someone makes you feel uncomfortable inside, you need to talk to us or your parents or

your teacher, or whoever you are comfortable talking to about this before it gets worse. >> the children's online privacy protection act is aimed at children under 13. do you feel that provide enough protection if facebook were to open two kids under 13 -- open up to kids under 13? is there enough protection in that? >> no. i do think that one of the insidious potential components of opening facebook to kids under 13 is who is advertising to them. who is the new market? our fat -- are fast food chains going after them? you want to make sure that the advertising -- because that is why they are doing this because they are making money, that it is child appropriate. >> i want to come back to one of julie annika -- julianna's

early questions about what you can do, you and the other attorneys general. current i think most companies should be very accessible right out front, very -- >> i think most companies should be very accessible right up front, very easy to get to on the dashboard. and it should not be in the small print where it says, by the way, every time you buy something, we are selling it to and in direct market. the component needs to be easily accessible and up front. the opt out and even an opt in option, even though that is a little ambitious. those are the two components we would like to see the federal government get involved in. >> it didn't microsoft just changed their policy on the

operating system to opt in? >> microsoft can say, by the way, we have this, so go to us. no one else has this. we congratulated them. they told us about it ahead of time and we are very appreciative. that is exactly where they are to be going. they could decide tomorrow to jettison that policy, but for now, -- if you had a federal law that encompass that, that would be better. >> what is your view on how the obama administration has approached privacy online, the justice department, dhs, etc.? >> we had positive dealings with the justice department, and the ftc and all of the agencies. and there are a few of them. i mention the consumer financial protection bureau because they will take a bigger role. richard cordray is not only smart, but he was an attorney

general and he gets it. he is a consumer advocate. i think it will play a bigger role and be more effective than some of the others. but we've had nothing but positive dealings with the justice department. the federal bureaucracy and the inertia inherent in the institutionalized way is much more difficult to break through. they have been supportive, but we have been driving a lot of this. >> i want to shift focus and talk about internet gambling. i know in your state there has been talk of including online gambling as an effort to expand gambling in the state of maryland. where do you stand on that issue? >> i have not taken a big stand on it one way or another, but i think it is certainly dangerous. most of the people that get addicted to gambling -- is an addictive practice and you can lose a lot of money. is generally done by younger people.

it is not taxed, so the government is not really getting anything out of it. that said, there are a number of overseas gambling sites that people use, whether in costa rica or the cayman islands or elsewhere. the reality is that it does exist. certainly, the federal government would be best positioned to to have regulations. if we're going to have online gambling, the federal government ought to be regulating it. >> as you are probably aware, the justice department last year interpreted the wire act and open the door by saying that it only applies to sports betting. now you are starting to see states move on this issue. it is your belief that the federal government needs to step up and clarify the law. it would you agree with that? >> i do. i think millions and millions of

dollars are gambled over the internet all the time. there is very little regulation. it is an area where there is almost no regulation. those were you actually get paid and it works, and there is business being driven to those particular sites, could they decide to steal everybody's money one day? yes. what are you going to do about it? >> is this an issue that you are looking into? greg's not really. -- >> not really. there is nothing more federal ban something coming from outside of our country to inside our country. we know where our boundaries are. >> another internet issue, which is something coming up in congress, internet taxation. that might be coming back as law, it seems. what is your view on the state

level on that? >> it is not a privacy issue, but it is an issue that has been talked about a great deal in every state. we're all strapped financially and we think it is a great way to get some revenue. i think ultimately, there will be taxation on the sales that occur over the internet. howard is done -- how is done, the devil is in the details. is it where you are sitting with your computer that will matter? is it where the company is located? where is amazon.com located? who will they pay taxes to? clearly, they will tax internet sales. and it is hard to think ardeche should not since the attacks you when you go to the store to buy something -- think that they should not since they tax you when you go to the store to buy something. >> doug gansler has been our