guidelines to begin with. companies are using facial recognition and it will benefit the business is a great deal in the future. it is in contrast to what is happening in the online behavioral online advertising space. the only adopted the guidelines after tremendous pressure from the government and the ftc. here are companies and are doing it attractively. as the technology matures, i hope these guidelines will be more widespread. facial recognition not technician, i hope will be increasingly used because it will be profitable. >> i want to thank everybody for coming. we have to cut his panel shut. there are hours of conversation. we have more coming up. thank you.

[applause] >> senator ron wyden has been a digital don quix and toot overe night millions came to his rescue. a digital don quixote. >> what an inflationary introduction. i did not know if he was having his campaign -- caffeine or what. it would be cruel and unusual punishment to give you a big filibuster at 9:00 in the

morning. if you are trying to get a little red bull inn to you or something to get started, i thought i might turn the old phrase about vegas on its head. we all know that the classic description of they this is that what happens in his stays in vegas. with the great work that might and everyone has done, we should say that the innovation that is demonstrated in las vegas means to be disseminated around the world. with the good work being done in time to highlight the opportunities for domestic and international progress, we should give them a special salute.

it is also important to talk about the threats and challenges for the internet as well. last year at this time, the cea invited me to talk about my fight about sopa. i said i would be glad to do it. at the same time, i was looking at the audience.

a lot of folks was sympathetic to congressmen eisa and die. i had the impression that people generally -- congressman darrell issa and i. they thought we would be nothing but a sizzling meals for the legacy content industry. obviously, out of that session and the meetings that we had with so many websites and technology folks and professors, you know the rest of the story. the 15 million calls and e-mails that came in to capitol hill and in a few days after the internet when dark, finally a light bulb went on in the united states congress and we were to stop that legislation. now what everybody wants to know is, since we have shown the

ability to block something, the question is, what can we do to come together as advocates for digital freedom, as advocates for innovation to affirmatively past imported legislation. i thought i was starts this morning by reflecting a bets -- a bit on what was said in 1969, the first year of the internet. it was observed that the ongoing cycle of economic growth is all about innovate dollars -- innovators undermining established economic interests who get undermine themselves by the next generation of innovators. she was making the case that if you do not have that kind of

cycle of innovation, you condemn yourself to economic stagnation. stagnation is the natural outcome of the ability of the income and interest to hot wired the system, to read the system in their favor because they have superior political and economic power and they employ all of these middlemen who are so effective in washington. they have public relations firms, they have lobbyists, they have superpacs and now they have these creatures that are particularly insidious called social welfare organizations, which are really political action committees that can get tax and for what they are doing. jane jacobs was seem well into the future. she understood that the only chance to preserve economic

innovation is to have a third force that attacks the emergence -- the merchant interests of innovation that cannot have those middlemen the merchant and tress of innovation that cannot have those middlemen -- the merchant what we now know is that the third force is you. those activists in the cause of the internet freedom and after-- in because of the digital economy include the 15 million people the united states congress heard loud and clear last january and has such enormous cloud on the political process. make no mistake about it. legislators have to do their part. there are democrats and republicans from all across the

political spectrum who see the importance of innovation and who are going to stand in the way of those who would try to hot wire the system to favor the incumbent and harm innovation. they seek special help from the government, claiming they won a marketplace that does not involve government intervention. to demonstrate that they really do not get it, they miss the fact that the way you can best promote markets and efficiency and innovation is to have a role for government that addresses market failures, blocks

cartels, blocks monopolies, and holds that the anti-competitive forces-really interfere with the most effective operations of free enterprise and innovations that are produced. a legitimate function of government is to defend the market against the forces that into beshear with efficient function. that is where you come in and that is where i want to spend a few minutes. if we play offense around an agenda for innovation, for internet integration -- innovation, we can use the language of the almighty oregon ducks. we can win the day.

>> let me put this under what i think is the appropriate banner for the internet innovation agenda, which i would describe as the centerpiece of our agenda, should be guaranteeing innovators the freedom to compete. here is what the freedom to compete in the marketplace means. first half to begin with access to the internet. internet service providers wired or wireless must be barred from practices that discriminate against specific content. the open internet order established by the federal communications commission is a good place to start. but it does not go so far enough because it is not comprehensive. most of las vegas will access the internet through their wireless connection, which is

not fully subject to the fcc order. it is clear that consumers across this country are going to benefit if there is more competition among internet service providers. that is not the case today. federal communications commission's estimate that 96% of the population is only one -- has only one or two isps to choose from. in order to discriminate against a provider of content, my view is that they should face the antitrust laws. senator franken and i are working on legislation to do that. to strengthen the antitrust laws to ensure that the major isps cannot use their market dominance to pit online winners and losers. a similar threat to competition

-- and i want to commend public knowledge on their great work on this -- broadband dicasts. a case can be made for the caps -- for data caps that managed to ingestion. -- manage congestion. they should not be used to create scarcity in order to monetize the top. the internet is too important for our common interests to b interestsits and bytes to be viewed only in dollars and since. it is time for legislation to establish a date to cap to give a pillar of opportunity to our nation's economic growth. promoting this freedom begins with the internet connection but it has to be routed through out

the internet ecosystem. a related concern is the effect of software patents on america possibility to innovate. i believe it is time for congress -- this is what happens when you have a baby. a month ago my wife and i had a kid. i have pictures on my iphone for after the program. [laughter] you lose your voice early in the day. congress ought to begin a review, a cost-benefit analysis, of software patents. the requisition of these patents appear less about deploying innovation and more about deploying a legal arsenal. the patent system should not operate as a tax on innovation.

that is the case today. how are you promoting innovation if you stand behind the laws that enable a few lines of code to be patentable for 20 years? software is different than many new innovations in america. it is a building block that we ought to be continually trying to build on and improve. i think we clearly have to put in front a policy maker -- put in front of a policy maker a need to review software patents. and innovation agenda can take a pass on privacy. for example, it is especially troubling that the documents americans leave lying around on their kitchen counter space

receive more privacy protections than the content americans store in the cloud. a rewrite of the electronic communications privacy act ought to address this imbalance. your health -- your help is going to be needed to make that happen. also central to a pro-innovation agenda are responsible approaches to cyber security. last year the cyber security proposal moved easily through the house. when it got to the senate there were a whole host of us that began to ask real questions about the value of that approach. questions about privacy, about the effectiveness of the bill. nobody disputes that there is a legitimate problem here. what is striking about the innovation agenda is that so

rarely are their disputes about the problems. the question is about how to attack the problems and particularly how to attack them without doing so much harm to the architecture of the internet and retarding innovation. on the issue of cyber security, just was the case of pipa and sopa. when people are ripping folks off, whether they are selling movies they do not own or fate of niagara or fake nighties -- or fake viagra or fake nikes, -- certainly the ones again missed the target.

phone number ability of critical infrastructure defense energy, health care -- the question is how should this be dealt with? i think it is important to address the bowl -- address the goal of cyber security without creating some enormous cyber industrial, rigid industrial complex that would produce an endless losing cat and mouse game that the affected how actors are going to win every time. you ought to make sure that cedras security is not used in a way that exposes the electronic communication of the american people to government and corporate snoops. having talked about content that

our people want to remain private, i want to spend a minute talking about content that ought to be shared and why that is a key plank in our innovation agenda as well. what shills the sharing of collaboration and ideas is copyrights and patents. rights holders -- rights holders are too eager to use their power to share offer -- to scare off challengers to the status quo. this perpetuates stagnation. indisputably the protection of intellectual property is important. my dad was an author. my dad comes out of that whole space that recognizes the equity that goes into a lead -- that goes into intellectual property. protecting it is important. the balance between protecting rightful words and a monopoly

that they have and promoting competition and innovation is just as important. it is time to reexamine it and reconsider it. members of congress are going the final but are going to file legislation that will penalize -- and provide due process and protection of when you have seizures of property. these efforts ought to be supported. let me wrap up by saying you cannot guarantee the freedom to compete by stopping at our borders. unfortunately the nation's trade policy and the global trade rules do. others have continually made this point.

the fact is the internet is the shipping lane of the 21st century. i often picture what trade debates were about 50 years ago. they did not move oxen and beat vehicles through the wrongs, but that is what it was about. it was about the movement of goods from point a to point b. i think we ought to start when talking about international trade by saying the internet is the shipping lane of the 21st century. as gigi and others have pointed out, it ought to be essential part of every single major trade agreement, starting with the trans-pacific partnership that is being discussed now i see this as arguably one of the more

free trade members of the congress who has voted for every major market opening trade agreement since i have been there. i have the welts on my back to show for it. the fact is countries are increasingly imposing barriers on digital goods and digital services for non competitive services -- for non-competitive purposes. china blocking global -- blocking google is giving their -- the discussions in dubai last month showed growing interest in regimes to control the internet. i hope that the congress working with the administration will lay out clear statutory negotiating instructions that require that

it seek as part of these trade agreements open internet discipline. it ought to start with the trans-pacific and into all major trade discussion. let me close with this. i remember starting in this whole discussion when i had a full head of hair and rugged good looks -- when i came to the senate in 1995. not very long after that people saw the congress was getting quickly into the issues and the internet as compared to a series of tubes. you all remember that discussion. when you look back at what has been achieved -- i guess you

would have to say 15 years, no more. there would be secondary liabilities for websites. an enormous amount of progress has been made culminating in the wind over pipa and sopa. there is a lot more heavy lifting to do. i think there is an opportunity for a coalition of leaders to go out and pick up new friends. two friends who are going to say, "at a time when we are worried about our kids and grandkids having economic opportunity that are as least as attractive as ours, you are in

the space that can respond to those desires." we are part of something that can be much bigger, and that is the ability to create a high skill jobs that america is hungry for. innovation agenda starts with that centerpiece, the freedom to compete. but it expands into some of those specific bills that i mentioned. it particularly ought to be considered something where we reach out to other parts of industries and universities and patent and idea maunders and look to try to build the kind of the economy this country wants. the kind of economy this country needs. and what the freedom to compete and the digital economy this is

the space that can contribute significantly to that win. thank you for having me. [laughter] [applause] >> you got your marching orders. the center has agreed to take a few questions. -- the senator has agreed to take a few questions. >> softball questions are especially welcome. >> in the back. speak very loudly. [inaudible] >> i cannot figure out why. >> in general we would prefer to use antitrust laws.

my question is what is it about antitrust laws that you think is inadequate today? what is it you are proposing to do to make that work better in your view? and how does that compare with your data cap bill, which sets a different standard for antitrust laws and price structures for data services. >> all of this is not legislation today. so let us take some time to be with you all and others as we prepare for it. the point that i tried to hammer on in the beginning is that i see government and government role in the technology space is mostly eliminating barriers. especially those incumbent interests who are off working

for stagnation and rent seeking deals rather than joining people like yourself and others on the side of innovation. so we are going to have a lot of debate about exactly how to look at data caps. i think there is a roll about managing congested and the specifics of what senator franken and i are talking about. we are working on the legislation. because your question -- as much as anything it speaks to a philosophical point. i know of the good work you have done on so many issues. let us start with something we agree on. start with the 80% you agree on. i think what we agree on is

that the role of the government today -- what was so exciting about the pipa and sopa coalition, conservative forces were not talking about setting up agencies and spending money. they are talking about something that stands for freedom. progress of folks have taken on special interests and they came together. when you talk about the 8% we agree on, i think we ought to start with right where we began 15 years ago with the communications decency act. make sure the government does no harm. and make sure they focus of government is to eliminate barriers so we can have a bigger role for an efficient market. anybody who is a glutton for punishment i will stick around in the hall.

thank you for having me. [applause] >> beginning with south carolina gov. niki haley. and then we will hear from governor martin o'malley. on newsmakers, senator chuck grassley talks about guns, immigration laws, and other topics. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> and john mccain's 2010 -- 20