labor-intensive process? long.urs behind it are what would your advice be to young video makers? >> it starts with the technical aspect. you are going to need a camera. do your research ahead of time. come up with key points you want to portray in the video. make a story board and think about how you will do that. find interviews with people know about the subject and will talk on camera. piece it together. at music. was the reception at your school? >> lots of congratulations. they had an assembly at my school and i was awarded the check. >> congratulations to you and all the team members at your school. good luck in your college career ahead. thank you for being with us.

can watch more of this year plus the winning entries in ur studentcam online at studentcam.org. today on c-span, a report about the quality of preschool. then a discussion about employers gathering personal data on potential employees. later, remarks about former president bill clinton and he weiselis cell -- elie about the holocaust 20th anniversary. >> it is driven by this certainty that religion and reason are in different boxes. science and religion are in different boxes and the two are at war with each other. they are inimical to each other. someone who is rat -- rational

is not religious and someone who is religious is not rational. ultimate irrational idea. belief that religion is inimical to reason in the west is completely untrue. religion under penned a reason. -- whether of the orwell prize for a journalism, melanie phillips takes your calls and tweets on c-span 2. >> next, a discussion about the funding and quality of preschool with education secretary arne duncan and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius. from the national institute of early education and research, this is just under one hour.

>> good morning, everyone. we are here on this beautiful morning to discuss the findings of the 2012 state of preschool your book. it is a very important publication. this is an extensive survey. oflook into funding preschools across the nation. conducted every year since 2002, over 10 years ago. the survey provides a decade of information on any changes in any state on policy, funding, enrollment and detailed descriptions of the most recently implemented in every state. it is widely regarded and it is

definitely a reference that we all look to across the nation. .y name is celia ayala i will be moderating this morning's event. i am the ceo of a nonprofit called los angeles universal preschool. i have been in education 39 years as a junior high school teachers when they were not called junior high school, third grade, in the garden, a school principal, and a school superintendent. i have had an opportunity to see so many programs. really wonderful ones and some not so wonderful. today's panel will be addressing the state of preschool. i am privileged and honored to have our secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius this morning. always secretary of education, arne duncan. have the gentleman to my i am sari, the--

president of the vanguard group, jack brennan and the president weingarten.i and to give us an overview of what the study indicates in this particular year, a dear friend and champion for preschoolers across the nation, steven barnett. [applause] >> thank you. good morning. the state of preschool in america is in a state of emergency. devastated by the great recession and by the failure of our leaders to prioritize early educational opportunity. 2012 was a year of first, most of them bad. adjusted for inflation, state pre-k funding fell 51 $48 million.

fell $548 -- 51 to $48 million.- $548 ofis $1,000 below the level one decade ago. state pre-k per child declined in 27 of 40 states that have programs. in 14 states, spending fell by more than -- more than 10%. only 12 states increased spending for children in 2012. the state of preschool your book tracks enrollment and quality standards. for the first time, we saw no increase in access to state- funded pre-k. year, the2-2011 enrollment was the same as in

the previous year. 16 states had enrollment declines, seven had no growth. only 17 states and washington, d.c. increase enrollment. let's look at a state-by-state map where the darkness of the color tells you about opportunity to enroll in preschool. in america today, access to quality pre-k depends on where a child lives. in oklahoma or west virginia, school begins at four. other states have made progress toward serving all children. 10 states, those that are whites on the charts, provided no pre-k at all -- white on the chart, provided no pre-k at all. our total in public programs is 40% for four your old.

4-yea -olds. year-olds. if preonly matters skates -- pre-k is good enough to enhance development. was comparedpolicy to quality standards. a perfect 10 was achieved by alabama, alaska, north carolina, and rhode island. close on their heels were louisiana, kentucky, new jersey, and tennessee. three programs actually improved against these benchmarks in 2012. programs lost ground, including five that his continued regular site visits that monetary program quality.

it is essential to ensure the state pre-k produces results. the 2012 cutbacks in quality standards were directly related to the shortfalls in state funding. only 15 states and the district of columbia could be verified as providing sufficient funds to meet all of these tend benchmarks for quality standards. children in state pre-k programs attend programs where funding is inadequate to provide a quality education. dismal newsof this for 2012, we see signs that a turnaround is possible. just this month, mississippi became the latest state to sign pre-k into law. there are now only nine states

that provide no public program. several governors have proposed new commitments. governor snyder of mexican and governor patrick of massachusetts have provided -- of michigan and governor patrick of massachusetts. step up tos need to prepare recent damage and to significantly expand preschool, raise standards, and build state capacity to monitor and ensure quality. recognizing the need for states to do just this, the president has proposed a state partnership to provide high-quality preschool to every american child. the cost of this giant step for young children is small, one- quarter of 1% of all government spending, not much that a rounding error in the federal government -- federal budget. good preschool education provides children with stronger foundations for lifelong

success. raising test scores, increasing educational attainment, and all those things provide a bundle of benefits for the taxpayer. for complete details from our report and the recommendations that follow, go to our website. that concludes my brief summary of the results. it is now my pleasure and honor to introduce the first of our panelists that will provide a response. secretary of health and human services, kathleen betty -- a aleen sebelius, lead theiative to partner with department of education to help states improve and increase the quality of early education. madam secretary.

[applause] >> good morning, everyone. thank you, steve, for that nice introduction and for your leadership on behalf of young children across the country. i am delighted to have the chance to join the advocates and colleagues on the states today. , arned partner and friend duncan, who is speaking out for children each and every day in his job. as steve has pointed out, this your's report has some grim news. report has some grim news. it also points out the urgent need for the program that the president called for in his state of the union. we know that high-quality early education has a huge payoff down the road, not just in improved

academic outcomes, in improved productivity and lower cost in public assistance programs and the criminal justice system. i entered public life and my children 2 and 5. i lived in early education space. i am a former governor. i know what tough budgets mean for states. i know that states make tough decisions about where to allocate those scarce resources. i hope the partnership for opportunity will help states reorganize their budget priorities. the investments that have you to pay off in the future are the ones that need to be looked at first in the tough budget times. and they should be the last place we cut money, not the first. even if states stepped up and do more -- and i believe they can and should -- there is a role for the federal government to

help support these investments in our nation's children. as a former governor, i would have loved to have been active funding partner at the federal level during those years. that is what president obama is talking about. i will continue working with congress to pursue the proposal the president put forward in his budget, a proposal that is fully paid for. today's report emphasizes that when it comes too early education, quality does matter. that quality means more than just learning number and the abc's. it means children get the nutrition and preventive care they need to stay healthy, building social and emotional skills, engaging parents to make sure they are nurturing their children's day development. over the last four years, we have pursued an historic effort to raise the bar on early education. we have had an unprecedented an

incredible cooperation with the department of education. that includes the race to the top early learning challenge and a range of staffers in the head start program, including sharing best practices on training and for economic and making sure finding competition goes to the strongest sentence. as of this report shows, we have more work to do in that area. we have come a long way in the next decade. we are committed to doing what we can to expand access to early education programs and to make sure those programs adhere to the highest quality standards. i want to thank you for being here. i want to thank you for your commitment to the children of america. i would like to turn it over to secretary duncan, who has been a close ally, a partner, and a terrific advocate for the youngest children in america. secretary duncan.

[applause] first, i just want to thank pat lane -- kathleen. she and her team have been great partners. doing two, three, sometimes about events a week together. just want to thank you for your extraordinary partnership. if we can work together at the federal level, then at the state and local level, people can start to partners. children do not care what the funding source is. they just want access to high- quality. i want to thank steve for every single year being honest, clear, objective, holding all of us accountable, good news, bad

news, just the truth. this is the third year in a row that we have talked about this report together. do thiso continue to for many years to come. the news here is not as positive as we would like it to be. state funding for preschool fell by more than $500 million. that equates to $450 per child. in 16 states, they reduce enrollment in state preschool programs last year. that is no way to create a world-class education system. it is no way to put our students on a path of college and career readiness. the achievement gap, we must close opportunity gaps. states with federal support must do so much more to level the playing field for our babies.

they have to do much more to provide equal opportunities for children, particularly disadvantaged children, to begin can a garden, to start school at the same starting line. -- to begin kindergarten, to start school at the same starting line. the truth is that the urgent need to greater access to high- quality preschool for children from low and moderate income families is no longer in dispute. nationwide, fewer than three in 10-month-year-old -- 4-year-old today are in preschool. children from low-income families start kindergarten and begin school 12-14 months behind their peers in language development and pre-reading skills. that is morally and educationally unacceptable. from a competitiveness standpoint, it is just plain

dumb. lags behind other nations in supporting early learning. the united states is 28th imam united statesin -- oecd nations in enrollment. i am concerned that the budget cuts will get even worse under sequestration. we have seen headstart and other programs ending the school year early because of sequester. budgets are never just numbers. they reveal our values and our value choices. you do not see a high performing competitors defunding education via sequestration.

our international competitors keep their eye on the prize and do not let dysfunctional politics create a man-made mass. they want to invest in education. they want to celebrate their progress, not put the brakes on. for example, south korea, 14th in the world in graduation rates has been investing in education that increase by toarly a third from 2000 2009. our investment increased only 6%. education spending as a percentage of gdp rose at twice the u.s. rate in other countries over the past decade. in the era of tight budgets and constrained resources, we should ask ourselves, what is the smartest use of our education dollars? what is the best way to invest. the best way is high-quality

early learning. it is the best educational investment we can make in our children, all communities, and our country. it is the best bang for our educational buck. a nobel prize-winning economist has rigorous data from the perry preschool project found a return of $7 from high-quality preschool programs. the long-term benefits came from improved academic performance and gaining 9-kind of skills like the ability to solve regulate. and the longitudinal study of the chicago parent study found 1.roi of 7 to roi.ompetitors know about countries, 15 year-old

who attended preschool where one year ahead of their peers in reading compared to students who have not attended preschool. one piece of good news in the report is that over the last decade, states have moved significantly to expand preschool programs and to elevate quality. i am convinced that that is where the force of history and the force and power of evidence about the early morning is leading all of us. is leading allng of us. andovernors, democrats republicans alike, referenced early learning in their state of the state addresses this year. many states led by gop governors like alabama and michigan are investing in quality and expanding coverage is to more 4 year olds.more

have great faith that our country, our states, and our communities are moving to building a better system of high quality early learning. and old-the evidence, fashioned common sense are on the side of president obama's proposal in investing in the early education. i would like to turn it over to ay friend, randi weingarten, long term -- a longtime champion for quality early education. she knows how this can have an impact on our nation. randi? [applause] , mr. secretary. thanks, madam secretary. thanks steve. i am proud he is a member of the aft.

i wish the news we have been discussing today was better. clear that thety recession and the years after the recession have taken its bite out of what many of us think is the most important and impact will investments in children. why are we here? it is not simply that we are deeply involved in early childhood education. we represent 100,000 or so members who work directly in the field. we filed the reports not just because steve and his team are members, but because they shine a light on what is going on in early childhood every single year. we saw the warning last year. the report last year started

on preschoolit programs. we said at the time that we thought we were starting to see that slip. the report released today made it clear that there was a huge slip. for the first time, we have gone in the opposite direction of where we need to go. i think the two secretaries have made it clear through their leadership, not just today, but years, hy here -- the why we have to reverse this and why these investments are essential to children's success and the success of our nation. i want to spend a little time on something that neither of the secretary talked about, which was how important the president's proposal is. they talked about how important state intervention is, but the

president's proposal is hugely important. it is not just say step in the right direction. it is a giant footprint in the right direction. it puts ece on the national agenda where it needs to be. of lies a new funding source. you can see i cannot speak a newe -- -- it provides funding source. itsecretary sebelius said, is an amazing national partnership that, as a governor, she sees as using important. it does not ask for a trade-off for all the other important services and programs for infants and toddlers. it is really a downpayment for the future. been a relentless advocate for expanding access to high-quality early childhood

education. that is why we are so into doing anything we can to make the president's proposal a reality. in earlys work education delivery settings. it is not just in public education. we are in school-based programs. we are in head start programs and we are home-based providers. we have focused on two ways of actually trying to move quality and adequate resources. we are working with higher education institutions to support a career path for early childhood educators, including the proper credentials and degrees, as well as ongoing training and professional development for those already on the job. that assuretandards high quality education. third, we are working actively to design and implement programs

that lead to a successful transition from preschool to the early grades, something we have to do in terms of the integration of our services. the last thing i want to say -- you have heard the clarion call. you have seen the evidence. the president has a plan to reverse it. there are governors, republican and democrat alike, who are starting to see how important it is. that me shout out a program that does not is shouts outs too much. trachel and selma-- selma from the peabody school. please stand up. i love teachers. i think they make an amazing difference in the lives of kids.

time, we have analyzed the data from the test of columbia and compared it to the other states that have state-supported programs. d.c. ranks number 14 percentage of children served. for fundingnumber 1 per child. what is happening is that that is the public commitment we need throughout the nation. thank you very much. that me end by handing it off to jack brennan. one aspect of early education that is often overlooked is that many of the nation's business leaders are strong supporters of quality preschool programs. they know early learning puts our children on a path to becoming the well-prepared workforce they really need. jack is the chairman emeritus chairmanthe vanguard group.

he served as chairman from 1996- 2009. thank you very much, jack. >> thank you very much. the advantage of the last before thanka -- one more thing you for this work. i'm here to represent the beneficiaries of the investments. one of the great things about the commentary that preceded me was describing this investment. leadershe way business you this. -- leaders view this. while the trend data is disturbing the fact of the matter is there is a good news

--ollary, which is recognizing this investment as absolutely critical to our future and very high return on investment. some of the data secretary duncan mentioned israel. i can tell you when i talk to other business leaders, when i talk to legislators, the administration, they get the fact that these investments are necessary. they are hard from a legislative standpoint because the pay off down the road. that is several terms from now if you are a of an elected official. the momentum in the business community is very strong.

it is focused on quality. think about cometary of the people who preceded me on this panel. it is about quality. it is about coverage, and reach. very importantly, this is one of the things i find most gratifying in all of my efforts onthis area, it is focused the most disadvantaged in our society. it is what president's proposal goes after. it is what the proposal of some of the state go after. it levels the playing field the business community sees that we will not be competitive on a global basis. secretary duncan mentioned some of the investment being made in korea and elsewhere. if we do not have a full children and of adults who are ready to learn and ready to compete on a global basis --

gets a simple argument to the people in the business community engaged and committed to early childhood education. the fact of the matter is the returns are very high. leaders, although sometimes been criticized for poor earnings, can look forward and see as generations moved through their organizations we need to have a steady flow of competitive young people join up. we will not be successful if we don't. that is the message you are hearing again and again and again. lobbying ground war of .n state capitals pennsylvania early learning commission is made up from 80 business leaders from some of the most prominent organizations

in pennsylvania. cities, our counties, our commonwealth -- we remind our country we need to be competitive on a global basis. the not so good momentum in steve's record is very strong momentum in the business community. you'll see this over the next several months as some things under will become more prominent. i think it is a very good news story but one in which we have to work daily and monthly to keep, and because these are challenging investments. message,ou with that that the business community is fully committed and the most aggressive business leaders are fully committed to the idea that and helpingerage, those in need is the kind of

investment we cannot afford to avoid and we will be glad we have made when those returns forward.n moving thank you very much. make a couple of points. having been a practitioner in the field that is what we do every day. theus in california president's plan could not have come at a time. it addresses the issues that surfaced in the report. it is about access and quality. ours about ensuring that teachers, that the support for these children in their , that isd our future

what we are all about. los angeles universal preschool currently serves 11,000 children with 325 sites throughout l.a. county. it is big. we do have a mixed moss -- we do have a mixed model. we write our programs so we have a quality rating and improvement system. much theentiate how preschool's get based on their start. the big issues are mentioned in the plan. who is teaching our children? are they prepared? is there continues professional growth for them? is there on-site support to the coaching model? -- to the approaching model? to have the resources to employment every site? whether they are at a nonprofit or profit, public or private, it has become a quality provider for children in the various communities in l.a. county, are

they being supported to ensure that their children are ready to thrive? -- youdergarten teacher know the children are ready or not. when they get to third grade they did not just stop. what happened in second? what happened in first? our achievement gap, and i can -- ouru a lot achievement gap starts in the can the garden. providing the funding is not enough. supportout the ongoing that our teachers need. it is about the ongoing communication with the parents, who many times have two jobs to make money so they can support their children. it is about how to i, as a parent, continue to support much

of's growth when they come home? parental engagement is critical, especially in the diversity of the communities we serve across this wonderful country of ours. monitoring is critical. maturing and ongoing support, because we as teachers get so busy. we have so many needs we have to meet. monitoring with assistance and coaching and support can only make our plan -- to not only make our customers better but make our children -- make our classrooms better to make our children better. we want to assure that anyone who works with children also have the transition and reticulation system with them. we do have standards. we do have nutrition and fitness as opposed to what children are exposed to in preschool. we're working on those 10 benchmarks that are beginning only because reduce a much more. we need to work on this

together. doruly believe the way to this is through this new plan that has been presented. for us it is a dream come true because we have been doing this work. but we need ongoing support and partnership from this great part of the country but to every their zipardless of code, regardless of their racial background. it is the beginning of their education. a lot more needs to be done. that by 2018,w only five years from now, 63% of job openings will require a higher education degree. higher education starts in preschool. we are quite asked some questions of our illustrious panel.

brennan, why do you believe the state preschool is so important to the business partners and your business? >> the database makes it very clear that if children get to they willdy to learn develop skills we need 20 years later. it's unselfish but we passed the skills that we think are important. it is the ability to work in a team, the anxiousness to work -- anxiousness to learn. if they start up behind and they stayed behind, if they go to high quality pre k and get to school return, that puts them on a trajectory to allow us to remain competitive. it is a very simple formula. >> thank you. why do you believe the united

states has this part -- has this problem of investment in early quality education? of readingl kind aboutday's new york times the wealth gap. i think what has happened is we don't come as much as we say it is important, we do not actually do what we need to do to care about other people's children. the that is the terms of austerity. -- you see that in terms of austerity. we know that this is important.

and we have the evidence. and yet austere and budgets, when there are choices that have been done keep kids got the when their choices that have been done kids get the short end of the stick. situation where 70,000 children are losing their head start spot under sequester. issue ofhere is this priorities and i am glad we are talking about this investment. i am so glad the president has put it out there in a really powerful way. other pieces this, everything can be about text -- about test fixation. when i see frankly in the school is that when there is a choice

between putting a teacher in third grade or test coordinator in third grade -- that is when the county budget that is when the accountability system starts -- versus trying to focus an early childhood. the accountability system has put the folks to marginal resources in higher grades. that is why it is needed based on the tax. >> behalf to turn this around. -- we have to turn this around. secretary duncan, what can we do to help you turn this around? >> i think this has to be a national movement. to see the business community, to see union leaders, parents need to speak up, faith based institutions, nonprofit

partners, folks like you sell -- like yourselves you will see it happen. to many politicians are wired to make short-term. this is the ultimate long-term play. julie rolls and for your oldster not vote. -- to your old and three-year- old do not vote. two-year olds and three-year olds do not vote. acting have the chance to fundamentally change the course of our country. this is a $75 billion proposal. this dwarfs anything else we have ever done. it is a 10-year commitment. as we think about a time limited -- we will be leaving and three years or nine months -- this is one of the most important guess we can leave the

country. >> tulsa much. -- thank you some much. secretary there is an element to address health issues in this report. what is the information you found most compelling? are would echo everything they just said about the need to -- everything already said about the need to make this a national movement. what the president has put on the table recognizes you cannot start at 4 years old. we need to start a purchase of there will be an enhancement of home visiting. that is an evidence based strategy that helps parents be good parents. it helps the first and best

teacher a child will ever have learned important skills. it moves into early headstart and child care where a lot of parents choose to have their children when they go to work. curriculum and social sckills. skills.l i would be remiss if i did not give a shot to our great deputy secretary who does a spectacular job in early childhood. he also is recognized as one of the tourists who started this effort. we do know that if a child has and cannot read and tested in the chair. they are not granted to very low scope. if they have not had breakfast

that morning they are not quite do well in school. important but also health and wellness and nutrition and social and emotional skills are incredibly important. working with parents is incredibly important. i think that combination is huge. i would be remiss if i did not also recognize that the funding tax tobaccohis products and particularly and number of the new tobacco products aimed at the children. what we know is that there are still a a thousand kids under the age of 18 to become lifetime smokers every day. there are four thousand 18 year olds in this country who tried the first cigarette or tobacco products. young smokers are very price sensitive.

critical, notis adding to the deficit. doing it in a way that will promote better health, their promise, and educate our youngest children cannot be a better situation. >> now i like to take some questions from the press. >> we're short on time. as congress begins the preparation process will you be visiting this report to push additional -- to include additional funding.

how realistic is it that congress will be able to pass meaningful legislation to fund this proposal? >> we have some hard work to do. it is no secret congress has been pretty dysfunctional on a lot of issues. i do not know how much opportunities they get to invest in something that gives you seven to one return. need everyone rallying behind this. if they want to work in a bipartisan way and in a long- term best interest of our country there is no better place to start. they're hearing from everybody. folks on the ground, folks in the corporate suite, they're hearing from the top country that this is in the important investment.

the features of the report should not be overlooked. resourcesa lack of during this last budget year. state and working on this effort for a very long time. they are way ahead of the federal government. they made investment in difficult times. not a partisan issue, this is one issue that has gained bipartisan support at the political level and huge business support throughout the country. if congress wants a recipe for working together to find common ground for moving forward and aid initiative -- and an initiative that doesn't raise health deficit, health costs go down. this is an area where i think

--ring from constituents they are not lobbyists, three year olds are not at the table. having the voices of the parents and advocates in the business community saying we cannot afford not to do this, this is an investment we must make for the future of this country. that is a pretty powerful message and i think that is what can move congress along. the secretary and i are quite have delete the tweet to leave you with the experts who can talk about this for it. -- the secretary and i are going to have to leave but we are going to leave you with the experts who are going to talk about this. >> amid president's proposal it is mentioned in terms of the theirrs, who are they,

background, the student teacher the parental engagement, and obviously what happens in the teaching and learning aspect. before i turn it over for closing remarks i wanted to say to the spanish media -- [speaking spanish] i will turn it back over to steve to the closing remarks. >> thank you. working on this as a scientist for 30 years. on theort focuses science and return on investment on the backs as we see them in terms of national

data. i wanted to say two things that put a human face on this. was a letter i read from a family home the care provider at the end of the start tohildren pressure her for a snack. she is not going to deny them when their parents show up but providereally afford to them with a snack. we had this discussion about what congress will do, what will the nation do, what will other countries do? south korea school now begins at 3:00. the united states of america cannot afford to provide snacks for 4 year olds. i do not believe that. i do not believe that is our country. i do not believe that is who we are. if we thought about what we are

are going officials to set their priorities. the second letter i got was from was ridinglorida she to find out where her little brother could go to preschool? -- she was writing to find out where her little brother could go to preschool? she could not speak english and she had a horrible time. she does not want that to happen her little brother. i do not think most americans want that to happen to their little brother either. secretary duncan started to talk about we need a preschool movement in this country, i would agree. thank you for being here. thank you to our panelists. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today, a discussion about employers and the information they gather about potential employees during the hiring process. the former president bill clinton and nobel prize winner will commemorate the 20th anniversary at the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. then u.s. counter-terrorism efforts from the world. the national rifle association held its annual meeting this weekend in houston tx. we'll show you some of the featured speakers including ceo

wayne lapierre and the organization's chief lobbyist, tonight at 8:35 eastern here on c-span. >> it was a small airport back in the '20s and the military came in and established a training base during the second world war. it was a very active base and it was quite an attribute until after the second world war ended and it closed and everybody laughed. the little town of yuma had a 9000 person population. not yet been established. the town had not a very bright future. the junior chamber of commerce said something had to be done.

toy had to attract attention the weather. they came up with an endurance flight. every time the flight would be mentioned to would say yuma, arizona. failed andttempt then in august they tried again. they had another major problem, it was hot. up toaid they will go 3,000 feet when it will be cool. it took a few months to get parts and repairs done to get it ready. they took off on the 24th of august and never touched the ground until the 10th of october. >> in late 1949 the future of yuma, arizona was resting on the wings of one airplane. literary life and history of yuma, arizona, today at noon and sunday c-span2,

at 5:00 p.m. on "american history tv." >> now i discussion on privacy during the hiring process. from florida m university law school -- from fordham university law school, this is an hour-and-a-half. >> welcome everyone. my name is andy, i am a proud graduate of fordham law school in 1998. after i left a practiced law a bit and ultimately became the chief privacy officer at american express. i had that job for six years and most recently went back to a law firm, which is now becoming a denton's. we have an amazing panel. i am going to introduce some of the panelists. we're going to be talking about employment and social media.

is patriciast sanchez, who is an associate law professor at the university of miami school of administration division. she has written on the topic of social media and employment and privacy in both spanish and english. i think she has a very interesting approach not only from an academic perspective, she is also an accomplished lawyer as well. from a sociological perspective, having dealt with students and young people all the time. we also have geoff andrews, he is the chief operating officer of social intelligence corps. has a background in technology and data with several

companies, including steelcard, which ultimately got bought by choice point, and before that price waterhouse coopers. finally, we have renee jackson, an associate with peabody in san francisco, approaching the same topic from the employment law context with the specific expertise again at the intersection of social media, technology, and the law. without further ado i will pass it to patricia. i see my role here today as not only facilitating conversation, but kind of framing the issue. this is a big issue with a lot of sub-issues going on. for the next 10 minutes or so i will present the argument, the issues, the salient points from the employer side and employees side to them kind of create a

background for a case study that will be presented by my coat panelists. let's first note that this panel is narrowly focused on the process for hiring or the dial of employment. so, we are covering everything from employer access to employees social media profiles and whether that is actively willing or not, that is a big question, and of course what the information gleaned from those sources. my hope is that i will go through the issues and at the end of the q&a you can expand. a will star with issues from the employer side.

the first and obvious issue is the idea of liability and risk. when hiring people there is always this idea of a reputation liability. you are bringing someone into the fold. you hear employers say it all the time, a good fit. what does that mean? someone who shares the values, the culture of the business, and who will be a good steward, a good representative of the company. of course, that leads us to the legal risk. a somewhat little-known court has been revived by social media, the tort of negligence hiring. is recognized in about half the states. as the name implies, it is a

potential legal liability for a business to have not done its proper homework in hiring someone and it resulted in harm to a third party. from the employer side, as i see it, is that perspective and lawyers want and to some degree must be able to judge an applicant on as much information as possible. process is a discriminatory process in the general sense. we discriminate. we discriminate on the appearance of the applicant, the presentation of the applicant, on whether the applicant seems to be someone who is reliable, responsible, trustworthy, morally sound, has good manners. none of these, as we know, are protected classes.

so, there is a lot of judgment going in that employers need to be able to do. so, we also need to remember in this category that in the u.s. privacy inright to public. no right to privacy in things that are publicly excessive or visible. i think that there is a big misconception that a lot of people feel about that. on the one hand, behavior that is evidenced by online research can be grounds for the nile for employment. right? the famous red solo cup picture. for those of you the familiar, i apologize to the trademark. this is the famous 16 ounces red cup that is ubiquitous in

fraternity parties and things and usually signals that there is drinking of alcohol going on, perhaps a rowdy party. they are depicting a prospective employee in a context that may not be desirable for the employer. on the other hand, for some thatyers the fact itself the employee has allowed this information to be out in public implies either at the very brief a kind of lack of technological sophistication -- how do you not note to figure out the privacy settings or do this at all? or even worse, a lack of common sense or a lack of good judgment. finally on the side of the employer i want to notice that at least in today's world, the

,dea of professionalism although it has evolved, it has not evolved that much. us dignity, currency, for the establishing and fomenting relationships. craft oureedom to identities, right? it allows us to play different roles in different settings. whatsense that is exactly the corporate persona, the professionalism gives us. unfortunately that also comes with two words that we do not like. concealment and a lack of freedom. right? you allorkplace, as

know, you cannot wear when he won, or most workplaces, you cannot wear which you want, say what you want, or act in however you want to act. there are certainly norm is that we live by. so, since privacy is somewhat this is aealment, kind of sticking point, something that is uncomfortable for us as lawyers and advocates. concealment does not sound good, right? it sounds like a legalized vehicle for fraud or distortion, or misrepresentation. so, to some extent this issue is boiled down to what level of concealments, of this playing

different roles in different contexts do we think is proper to allow applicants and employees, generally? me to theeads perspective of the employee side. obviously, the prospective employee does not know that the search is taking place. this could lead to very intrusive, uncomfortable feelings of surprise. think that this element of surprise is probably less than it was a couple of years ago. in business schools we have been very actively educating students from their first day on creating their on- line persona. but i think that this feeling of surprise is true and it happens

whether or not there is -- let's say a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. it is akin to having a guest in our house and maybe finding out they went through your sock drawer, or worse, your medicine cabinet. put it in legal jargon, and iniki feeling. -- icky feeling. if the prospective employee has knowledge of the search, we also have something of a conundrum. because we cannot ignore the power differential that occurs in a room between a hungry job applicant with a family to feed and someone offering a livelihood. especially in a rough economy. informeddea of

is one, of coercion, that is troubling and one that we will have to grapple with. from theoncern employee side is the concern of misjudgment. we employers often when we run these kinds of searches that are clandestine, they do so in an area absolutely void of context. whenl know what happens there is no context. especially when you are looking for something bad. it is very easy to interpret that read solo cup picture as something illicit when it could really be punch at a school fair or something much less controversial than that. there could also be an error or a posting by a third party.

there could be judgment on content that was not up loaded by the person but was maybe up loaded by a friend and it was put on their profile so now the applicant is not only being judged by the content of the profile but by maybe some of the orts, the wall posts whenever that their friends have shared. so, this is probably exacerbated by the fact that there is a lack of rebuttal. there is no rebuttal here, there is no rule of evidence here, there is no opportunity. in most cases especially for workers who are performing may be non-executive jobs, employers are not likely to bring them back in and say -- i saw that

picture of view and tell me what was going on here. that is not really, not really going to happen, or has happened to my knowledge in our current world. is then probably the worst the idea of back door discrimination. and now i am talking about illegal discrimination. this idea of insidious discrimination, this idea that an employer could find out the they based that employment decisions on through a back door. through clandestine channels. like a woman who said she wanted to have a big family on her facebook page, but that is not compatible with the employer's desire, or someone who observe

the sabbath, not something that an employer might want. the only is this dangerous because it is insidious but it is dangerous because it will be very hard to prove, very hard for the employee to even know what happened. and hard to detect. with those comments, with that kind of framework, i will pass it on so we get more about how it is really done in real life, the practical perspective. thank you. >> good morning, everyone. to follow up on that wonderful framing of the issues, we wanted to tell a story. when this panel was put together, jeff and i were put on the panel.

when we got together we said -- would it not be great that you could tell the story of how we met? the work we have done together? following up on pretty much all of those issues that were just outlined. so, some of the work of we have done is a confidential privilege. is a good story. in july of 2010, jeff's company was courting ready to launch. they do what you would call social media background checks. the satellite -- instead of a felony history report being run it is a report of your publicly available social media profile, anything on the internet about you. i had received an e-mail from jeff and the sea of saying that they had read an article i have written and they would like to

talk to me about the issues involved with what the company was planning to do from a legal perspective to make sure they were doing it correctly. at this time i was a third year associate and we set up the call to kind of discuss what i have outlined in the article i had written, which was from their perspective what do they need to do if they are running these background checks? make sure that the employer is only seeing the information that they are technically allowed to see. so, we talk about state, federal, local, discrimination statutes and how they vary widely from state to state. and how that employers cannot make employment decisions based on them. we spoke generally about privacy laws that the state and federal level and how only publicly available information could be

used. that there would be no hacking, no asking for passwords, however else you might be able to access a person's profile. we did talk about negligent hiring and how this would be a tool to combat a claim of that with some hiring today. we ran a background check on this applicant, in addition to the other checks the brand and this could be cleared. at the end of the conversation i distinctly remember saying -- have you ever considered whether you have to comply with the credit reporting act? they turned it back to me saying that they were hoping i could answer that. for those of you that do not know, the fair credit reporting

act regulates companies -- they are called consumer reporting agencies, companies that do these more traditional background checks. fairness statute that was written a couple of decades ago in order to protect in the employment context applicants and employees in certain situations and it requires certain disclosures to the applicants regarding information in the report. it provides for a resolution process. makee employer decides to an employment decision based of itt is in the report requires an adverse action letter telling the potential employees that we are want to make a decision based on what we saw in this report. you have five days to dispute

it, here is the process and here -- here's how you contact the agency. i said to jeffrey j. have you considered whether you are a consumer reporting agency? he did not know the answer. at this point there was no other company doing what they do. >> i believe my response was -- that is why you are talking to you. >> yes. we started working together right after that call. one of the first things that we did on the business side was set up what we call the human level review. so, after the report is generated, someone at the company has to look at it and redact the protected class information, doing various other things. we compiled a manual for the thatyees to actually do

worked so that the employer never sees the affirmation they are not allowed to consider. and then we set about trying to figure out how the intelligence complied with the fair credit reporting act. the definition is so broad that it applies to what your company was planning to do. there was really no way around it. so, we started working together to figure out how this law that was written a long time ago without any of what this company was doing in mind, how it could comply with it. ever havey, if you trouble sleeping, i highly recommend reading the act. it can be brutal. variable and broad definitions.

about trying to figure out how to put the manual together. and we did. jeff and i were talking last night. i did not really realize it then, but i realize it now, it is very cutting edge work. we have no road map on how to do this. down and doing the best we can, try to figure out how to comply with it. kudos to jeff and his company for try to figure out how to do it the right way before we launched, really sitting down and sitting to the issues in order to be fair to the employees and provide a great service. so, fast-forward, we put this manual together with how to

apply for the fair credit reporting act. best of our knowledge. >> or ability. during the process we called the ftc for guidance on how we could possibly solve this law that is written in a way that makes it hard to comply with. i explained to the fcc that this is the company and this is what they're planning on doing, how can we comply? how can we understand how the statute applies? we had a great back-and-forth with an attorney at the ftc, they were actually really excited about these issues. when i would call and asked questions the attorney that i spoke with would say -- you know what? this is an interesting issue and i do not know the answer, let me speak to my colleagues and get back to you.

helpful andtion was collaborative. fast forward to i think it was october. >> we launched in october 2010. >> at the end of the month we got a letter saying that we were on the receiving end of a non- public investigation by the ftc. theo not know how investigation started. it was not based on the conversations i was having with the ftc, those are always anonymous, i never mentioned the ftc -- never mentioned the client. it was anonymous. when you get that letter -- >> it can be overwhelming for a new company management team to proceed with. because a lot of the work we had done

proactively, we were well positioned. >> after we got over the initial shock of being investigated, we saw it as an opportunity to show the ftc -- here is what we did, we made a good faith more than reasonable effort to comply with this statute. if we missed anything or messed it up, tell us and we will fix it. we were basically just doing the best we can. here is all approve. -- here is all the proof. we interacted with a different person but it was a lot of the , about howorative ok we were providing with this section. the woods a good, but we get a little bit. it was a back-and-forth so that we could refine their process

these and manuals to make sure they're doing everything correctly and at the end of the day, may of 2011, they closed their investigation and determined that this is a consumer reporting agency, which we knew, and we moved on from there. it was a great experience to confirm what we have already done and what the company was know, complyu with the law as best as possible. the story of how we met framed a lot of the issues from the fairness perspective and non- discrimination perspective. from the employee and employer perspective, we wanted to share that story because it is kind of an interesting set way. we will let jeff explain more about his company. >> it is only appropriate,

talking about social media, that i let everyone know that i will officially like them. now the that is out of the way. embark on this project of trying to determine what beld be good social media to used in a legal and compliance fashion to enable the employers to help to inform the hiring decisions that they make, it was definitely a daunting journey to begin with, but we realized early on and i firmly believe this today, the best way to protect the employers from a negligent hiring perspective but also from the perspective of making sure that they are being fair and true to the job applicant is protecting the job applicant.

haverocesses that we followed over time are really about making them aware of what is happening and making sure that the have consent, ahead of that making sure that the organization requesting the bagram organization or background check as a permissible purpose. from there ensuring that there are steps, whether it is through adverse communication enabling ability toe the dispute. in addition there is information -- everyone understands that social media is rich with information. unfortunately it is also rich with information that can a lot of times be used inappropriately. sometimesintently, not necessarily intentionally.

was we neededood to have a process that keeps the job applicant informed and protect them and insures that the employer only sees information relative to the position as well as legally allowable. that's the only information incorporated into the report is the information publicly available so that there is not this question of -- are we invading someone's privacy? are we circumventing the privacy settings of different websites with a free text and other sorts of things? from our perspective is about protecting the applicant, protecting the employer. toughers are in a position today. they can be found negligent if they choose to ignore this information out there, in

addition to the fact that they take on the challenge of competitors using disinformation. who are the people that they are hiring if they are not using this same information? on the other hand, they cannot just willy-nilly go out and look at this information. before you send an offer, just go use your favorite major search engine to determine which a confined. you cannot do that either because that is not fair to the job applicant and they run the risk of exposing themselves to information. now they have to prove they did not use it. it is a very interesting challenge. employers are in a box. our focus was really trying to solve this problem for the employer by being a third party,

my only sharing relevant information in the process and by having a process by which we only -- where we were not the decision maker, where we were providing them with information. finally, i think that very often with social media, so much of the focus is on the negative information out there, things that we refer to as potential areas of rest. but i think of what employers can leverage and should take into consideration leveraging is the information that could be positive about individuals, identify areas of opportunity and potentially helping them distinguish between different candidates. for example, if someone is active within professional groups, active within speaking at conferences and other things,

this is probably a good indication that they are actively engaged in their own profession. so, while there is often a -- he will sell more newspapers if you talk about all the bad things that happen, we understand, but there is a great opportunity to leverage the positive information out there to create a new perspective on an individual. taking that into consideration and hiring them. >> it is incredibly thoughtful how you step through such a new space. do you find that this has been accelerant to the business? or something that has made it difficult? a greats actually been benefit to us.

legal, privacy, other issues this morning, and would never suggest that, but it enabled us to be a business that builds from a process perspective and while there is always room for improvement, it gives us a very good foundation for the other areas that we want to take into .onsideration >> was this your first time interacting with the ftc? looking back on that, would you have done anything differently? would you recommend that approach to folks who find themselves in an ambiguous situation? question that a needs answering from a government agency, especially if

you are doing it anonymously and not naming your clients, i see no harm in asking. they're definitely issues that we work with generally stuck on. response wet get a would have formed our best guess. it was nice to have that dialogue. both before the investigation and during. i cannot say that we would have done it differently. we saw it as an opportunity, even the papers that we submitted in response, we were very open. we did not hold anything back. we have tried our best. doings case when you are something that is so new, i did not see any other alternatives. if we can get a little guidance in that regard.

>> turning back to the professor, now that we have fleshed out where the business model started and where it ended up, looking through the filter of the concerns that you have, can you talk about your reactions and the way they were organized? specifically with that business model or the issues. think it is a great and come, whose time has probably came a couple of years ago with a lot of tears from people. concern and it is not really a concern that you can address, who is your client? target client? i would imagine that people -- first of all, i would imagine that a lot of lawyers are

engaging in this activity. but the employers who are more disposed to hiring new and and insuringy de fairness in the process are to be looking for executives and a kind of higher -- i guess my concern would be how about everyone else? reasonablevery concerns. i completely agree. employers, if you look at the surveys out there, employers anonymously are very open about the fact that they have leverage social media when they make -- when they go to hire individuals. frankly one of the benefits that i see that we bring to the applicants is that we in force that process.

by being apart from just having them out there doing this on their own without any reasonable processes or consideration of what is allowable. isgree, if this information going to use, it needs to be a consider fashion it in a standardized process in a means that is fair and consistent throughout. >> there is another dimension to this, sociological. it is -- what will be the behavior change now that this type of screening -- clearly there is value there. bearly employers will looking forward to not- traditional sources of data inside some individuals that they will invest in. not only in terms of competition. have you started to see a change?

in the behavior of social media? colleaguesrs ago my amongconducted a survey business students, specifically, who were about to go into the job market. we asked them all sorts of questions from their feelings of privacy policy to the feeling that work and private life should be separate and that employers should not cross-judge or go beyond that line. there were several questions. one of them was -- do you think it is appropriate for an employer to search social networks for publicly available information on you? they were somewhat surprised that even though they really wanted to participate or were not willing to opt out or give

up on participating online because that was their existence, in essence, 50% of them said that they disapproved or highly disapproved of that practice. fast-forward, now, about five years later and i do not have empirical evidence, but collectively i would say that there were a lot of students that i mentored. i teach colleges, high schools, middle schools, they have been doing such a good job over the past couple of years in inculcating in children and young adults that you need to be kind of like your own personal pr agency. fruits i am seeing the of that, seeing for the first time a lot of students opting out. students, even sophomores in college telling me -- you know

what? i do not even have time for it. or i will go there and send twitter messages once and awhile, but nothing inappropriate. they have this appropriateness meter put into them. at least that is what is going on in higher education. we were talking about it last night at dinner, he called it the shift from social to antisocial. been ae has misconception over the last couple of years that younger people do not value their privacy and they tend to be much more sophisticated by the networks that the use. we have been talking about social media. there are many different types, right? >> from our perspective we really considered the categories

of social media. is publicly available electronic information. being donecus really user generated content, content that i as an individual have been putting out there about myself as opposed to the comment from earlier regarding a third party. that friend that we would not want our prospective employers to me. or are mother. we're looking at the context itself, of what is allowed to be put out there. >> not all publicly available information. >> really focusing on user generated. content that you yourself are putting out there in your social networks. really, that type.

>> it brings a broader issue of identity and reputation. these two worlds, we are connected in some of the different ways. definitely, there is behavior change with some of the younger people in my opinion. i also believe that when every fortune 500 ceo is talking about this strategy, kind of life and your grandmother says bling. it is the end of that phase. there are many new messaging implications out there. snap chat is not private but gives the misperception that it is and certainly these issues have a lot of different dimensions. i think that you guys have been very thoughtful in how you step through.

that is why we have had this spate of state laws that have risen. illinois, california, minnesota. there is tremendous value in toerstanding the individual, know that this is the world we live in. there are many different sides to the issue. with that, i think we wanted to turn to the audience for some questions. i would guess people just to hold their question until the microphone reaches them. thank you, i thought that this was the great run down on the issues. for the aclu on this panel had an emergency hearing this morning, so i would push a

bit from the individual's perspective. i thought that it was fascinating, the experience that she went through for this kind consumer report on an individual. raise a whole set of questions about the efficacy of the acts and the sheer appropriateness of doing this kind of reporting. when you look at the fair credit reporting act, the statute has a special set of rules with personal interviews. at the time that it was written it was seen as incredibly intrusive. what did this person talk about? what did this person think? what you're doing did not zenith -- did not seem to fit in there, the sametively it is

kind of report from the investigative consumer provisions. all of a sudden it changes the economics of it, the dynamics. in a way that is a real sea change. i wonder, in sort of thinking this through how might you see this affecting the industry? [inaudible] and i willrspective let others answer. from our perspective, because we are focused on user generated content information that i am putting out there about myself, it does not for the fall into

that category of -- what are my neighbors or friends saying? secondly, the point i tried to make earlier, one of the processes that we put in place was to hear the credit reporting act to make sure it could be the requirements around maximum possible efforts with accuracy in the review process. the buildingogy to of a profile of an individual with an individual that comes through to make sure it is the right person using the standard process for data validation of to elements as addressed using the individual, going through the process of redacting the information. we are only looking at the

information, positive or negative as defined by the employer. through that process we tried to make sure that the issues that raise the four were addressed and settled. on the fair credit reporting act i would say that it is definitely not an investigative consumer report. we have treated it as a consumer report. the outset was to comply with the spirit of law. it has a built in mechanism for the applicant to have a kind of back and forth to know that this is happening and know that a decision is being made. at the end of the day our choice was to do the best we could to

comply with that in fairness to the applicant. everybody wins. been aink that there has lot of question with the advent of the new technology, a social media, whether it still applies in the same way. i think that the ftc has established the position that it is and they will continue to apply it. this about how companies leverage the information and how they make offerings around disinformation. you have again taken a fall for route under the layers of controls. one question that i did have -- did you find it difficult to

extend some of of control to the behavior of the company's, the clients providing the information? >> one of the things that we do to make sure that there are [inaudible]ols broad categories. we want you to give us information, all the information. areas of risk, areas of opportunity for the job applicant. on the risks side of the demonstration toward intolerance, things of that nature, falling into a risk category.

side, as itive mentioned earlier, the opportunity side, the fighting information. the adverse side is more interesting to -- >> the adverse side is more interesting to people. can you walk through the adverse action? the same way that it was a criminal background check. using the services gets the report and makes the boy and a decision. making that decision in the report, they have to send an adverse action letter to the applicant saying the we are planning to make an adverse decision based on information

found in the report. here is the name of the consumer reporting agency. if you want to dispute the accuracy of the that -- of the report, call them. there are five days. if it cannot be cleared up in , the employer sends a letter saying that we are now making the decision to not hire you. there is this ability to object to the accuracy of the report and a dispute resolution process. the employers are capable of doing the search is on their own. i know this. they want help doing it in a consistent way internally.

i see how inconsistent it was before they called me. are doing it in house. we can definitely help to set up a process to do it that way. better procedure, consistent and fair. if and lawyers are doing it in the applicants will not know if it is happening. see them user this. because i know it is as compliant with the law as possible. was more nuts and bolts. issue in this adverse action letter.

drafted and provided the actual letters. those consentall forms to the employer to use. >> for all of you in the audience to not be alarmed, we always make a recommendation that they should speak to their counsel about the appropriate forms to use. >> can you talk to us a little bit about what a report looks like? stopping this kind of intolerance, this behavior, is there a copy of what the person wrote? a picture? is how we found the

information and how it was related. we have redacted , the area formation where we found it, the picture. it is publicly available. entitled to aso copy of the report. the applicant report. >> is there a proprietary scoring for how good or bad something is? not to any form of scoring. certainly, that is an area where you do begin to get to the the individual.

well, how was i scored? how do you determine that the algorithm was quantitatively better? reason i am not a proponent of purely automated solutions, i do not think that this point it would be a very good practice for employers or organizations to provide services to employers to utilize any form of scoring. would becomehat who is making the decision. in theory there making the decision along with a whole host of other information, a traditional background checks, references, interviews, it is a compliment to all of that.

that issue.i see >> i think that that is an important point. the information contained within social media it does not necessarily contain backing. tools and services available for employers. you just introduce yourself? >> i am from the national work rights institute, formerly senior level of the aclu. if i was expecting to get upset with you and was really encouraged by what he said, the idea of -- this is point to happen. if i was still running and a charred apartment, i would do it myself. what scares me is the fact that someone in a jar sees everything on someone's facebook page and

makes some had of crazy ad hoc decision and i am out of a job. ae idea of outsourcing it to third party and that having a screen for the relevant and irrelevant is exactly " we have been preaching for some time now. the question goes to -- how do you determine what is relevant? for example, the famous red cup issue. if the -- if this guy is 21, there are no children around, not driving a car, does the fact that he drinks alcohol -- is that job related? >> that is a piece of information that we would provide to an employer. they have a set of criteria that they can choose from. we are focused on areas of potentially violent activity. tolerance,ons of potentially illegal activity.

those are the areas of rest that i think our most of yearning for , they could have seen that this individual was out there making these types of statements or demonstrating a form of discrimination towards another individual. without the information they hire this person and now this person goes in and harasses this co-worker, another stakeholder of the organization or, god forbid, customer, now have some real issues to take into consideration. >> thank you. >> next question?

>> hello, in the interim secretary of the i.t. law committee for the associate of the bar of the city of new york. what your whole panel is dealing with today is something that we have talked about a lot. the 800 pound gorilla in the room, it is the blue whale in the elevator. i appreciate the service you're trying to provide, but at the end of the day there is nothing to stop a private employer from using their home computer to check the site of someone. even ifr issue is that someone tries to keep a squeaky clean profile, a completely polite facebook page, no pictures of my kids, though local affiliations, whatever, it will be squeaky clean, there is recent case law saying that with

as little information as your name or yours it code you can get a plethora of information on someone. and there are other leaks that can be used, like your amazon wish list for me up groups. a lot of people do not for the energy into a complete second identity for their private life being kept only private. i do, but that is just me. again, there are so many other ways that might not be traceable as a source of discrimination. something like the last name, you can go to babies are us and you can just out of curiosity check to see if they have a registry or if they recently got married, things like that. there is so much different information out there. address it. in a way it is not traceable

back to an employee. is -- who is the you? it is incumbent on the individuals to understand that that is the world they lived in and affect some sort of behavioral change. maybe not to the point of bifurcating their personal or professional lives, because that is not completely possible for a lot of people, but i also do not now that that is reason to legal contract that protects individuals in this area. think that employers or anyone has the ability to go and search other individuals. itnkly, that is why i think is to the benefit of the job applicant to have processes in place like what we are doing,

like getting these processes in place and they are doing it internally. those of the pieces that are important. it will be interesting to see how the legislation goes in through where there is this requesting user names and passwords from the individual. you cannot do a yourself. you are going to face legal risk are you -- if you are doing this internally on an ad hoc basis. discriminatory hiring was

really hard to prove before the advent of the internet. it would come out because you hear word-of-mouth. that is a possibility. it might be easier to prove now. of experts tolot examine computers. it is a many -- amazing what occur what you've visited. it can be proven depending on what you have done. >> your average citizen cannot is pulling --ter is pfizer. site areputer's on- clean. will joe be able to go subpoena

every person on his resonates -- phones approve that they saw my facebook page? .f you sue, you can get that the average job applicant is not have the resources to do that. >> that also goes to the point that it may not be so different through the lens a social media. very good question. question in the back? >> you have been talking about this and guidance. , don'the recent actions you see some new lens being

applied to these activities or perspectives coming down that can you share those? down?ming can you share those? >> the ftc has been out front as far as enforcement in this regard. the only new legislation to speak of is at the state level with the password request laws that are making their ways stategh various thi legislators fear there's not a lot of state activity. >> i think they're finding their way around each other. there's a lot of overlap. with specificking expertise from financial- services. i do not think you introduce

yourself.- introduced i think financial-services has been incorporated for social i do not think that.has been -- inc. for and not think there's been anything focused on that. should people start using this on creditworthiness then we can certainly see a position for its. . not an area we have a question now. i do think there are, there is a that nother pandora's box we have to get our heads around.

from our perspective, determining credit worthiness based on social media may be coming at some point. >> we have another question. can you wait for the microphone? >> i am an attorney. patricia mentioned applicants are becoming more and more privacy savvy. what is galling to happen to your business model of an applicant's -- what is going to happen to your business model when all your applicants are on private? time have spent proactively going out and abouting college students

how to set their privacy settings correctly, what employers are looking for. of manyour best efforts of the educators out there, we have only seen usage increase .cross social media older individuals are becoming more savvy and much more engaged. -- we're noteing seeing a decline in the ability to identify applicable information. whether or not we're able to identify this, it is hard to know.

it is very good from a business case perspective. >> i work for the australian privacy commissioner. i suspect people will be making decisions on bases they did not disclose. if you have great year they will find a legitimate basis to say so. something they do not like on social media, and they will commission and independent report. know, i likeed to prospect.length do you run the report?

>> a very good question. we have a very structured firewall process between the individual " has no -- who has the hiringth process that runs is screen for all of our hires. that information is redacted just like what we do for our customers. we very much practice what we preach. >> i ask you this yesterday but i am wondering if he could speak to it today. what is your opinion but the is up the courage.

this is something that is a concern for employees tha? i can pontificate what it from someone with no on- line presence. that is not what we take into consideration are something we would report. it is a very interesting theoretical discussion about what it means and what you can -- from that.hat think organizations should be taking that type of information. >> i worry about age

discrimination. my clients are making discrimination based on the internet footprint. that would tend to be people who are older. i would worry about that. laste talking about this night. there's this thing called klout which measures your social media influence. it is a score. we all have scores whether you know it or not. there are employers were making decisions based on your kkl lout score. -- isasures are on loan -- a measure online presence. to me eight weeks of age discrimination. of ageeeks discrimination.

woulding to the law, i worry about age discrimination. i think it is interesting to share my views on this issue. we did not have anybody coming to us for guidance of such an activity. more it would have been because of the north side. what is very important is the fairness of the collection. it does that mean that you had more.

it is publicly available information. it means many employers have to show only the information in and abilities of the job. going on social media would not seem relevant i fear. it does not mean they do not do it. there is something that is clear in your perspective. we're trying to do the best we can.

having the constant of the applicants in giving back a copy explainnformation to and say that is wrong, we receive a lot of complaints of a falseing reputation. we have some companies coming as reputation cleaners. you had market share for companies to clean the way. in that sense we do not want to try for this activity. we do not really see the relevance of using such on the job application.

there are already many questions. question about the younger employees. this means you would use some information. >> we would never go back before someone was of legal age. >> just to follow up, it seems like there is some analogy. painting this whether it meets the exclusive set of requirements that the eu has. you are not providing a copy of .he report itself here

>> on the consent form we provide the guidance to our customers, we enable everyone who has a report on them to get a copy of it at the time we do then order to adhere to fare at reporting act. one we write a report ability to get a copy of that report. >> i think the reputation cleaners, there is a big market opportunity. -- there's ass misperception that they are

erasing information. a lot of what they're doing a search engine optimization. it is building technology to push those results to the back. issues thatme people believe they have now gotten rid of this bad information. it is still there. it is just push done in terms of relative scores so does that come up as highly. we have another question in the front. >> what happens if social intelligence misinterpret a piece of information that it finds, a screen shot somebody at

a racist rally? informationng that and misinterpreted. you be liable for negligent misinterpretations th? --i will leave that in situ i will be that information. leave that information. we're looking for an objective set of information. resolutionwe have a process is to enter a situation where we are able to miss identify something and the employer were to inform the applicants they were going to take the adverse actions. that is the exact reason we have this process, so they can come

to us and we can generate a new report. >> theoretically the employer cannot fire a person because of the controversy. a person because of the controversy. >> there is a lot you can take into consideration. >> our attorneys the ones you're making the decisions -- are attorneys the ones that are making decisions? >> we are not making decisions. cannot speak to cross each customer who is making the decisions on their part. it depends on their hiring process. >> it is a discovery of a violent activity. at some point it is a decision that it is a violent activity.

to is making that interpretation? making that interpretation? >> it goes through multiple process these of quality -- of quality assurance to make sure it meets the standards. i was intrigued by something that came up a couple of times about the individual job applicant receiving a copy of the report in the event of an adverse action. >> there was a report that requires agencies to make available for free a copy of a consumer report. think of fairness and

transparency of this kind of information gathering sharing for job applicants, i wonder how your organization feels with a standard annual credit free reports. second, your company is run reallyng -- is complying. i think it is terrific. i am sure there will be other companies that will be using third party rather than first andy information information that may not be as careful for job applicants. the data access obligation might work in those instances. earlier, weioned

at any time to their application. with regard to other companies doing this in a less fair a likelycertainly , it is something employers need to take into consideration when they evaluate what organizations they work with.

>> they have guidance on employers to criminal background checks on certain factors they should consider. i am wondering if the panel recommends an employer does the same thing with the social media type information. in mining asking applicants about -- it might mean asking applicants about a picture or report. , i thinkot think employers should look at this information in consideration of the whole perspective on the individual. have stepsy should in place to make sure this information is not being used in a backing. uum. vac

the best way the employer will protect themselves is by protecting the job applicant. if the employer has stepped in place to sit down and have a conversation with the be todual, that will only the employers and the applicant's bid at it. >> can you wait for the -- to thee and the applicant's benefit. >> can you wait for the microphone? the first comment is if we are here to address the question what could interfere with the privacy, you are doing a great thing but you just moved employerion from the

to a third-party. second one, it bothers me are third-party companies doing that investigation. the suggestion is what about starting from the candidates itself in tell him to provide us with the information that you would like us to go over from the social network. that seems much more legitimate, just to grow over the information the candidates provided. >> i think they're only reviewing user generated

material. anything would be self report ed. a is different -- it is difference of reported concept. if you post this regarding this specific application, give us your virtual thing. >> it does happen for certain jobs. hiring a social media manager you want to see what their online presence is. maybe they have an industry blot they would like to look at. it happens on a case by case. to this isg access becoming illegal in many states.

that is not a practice i would encourage. on the axlehis applicant is a much better position of power. back in 1992 you all remember when you're in the hiring process that the news reporters talked about bill clinton smoked marijuana. he was on the defensive. that heaste he said smoked but he did not inhale which was laughed at and everything else. forward we're now in the hiring process. president obama had already disclosed that in his book that

he had experimented with cocaine. toe people use that example say we have come a long way in our views on drug use. i am going to say that is not an example of. it is an example of increasing the fact that we have a digital record out there. we have records of our reputation. the more you own and manage the disclosure of that information, the more power you have. >> a great way to finish. >> thank you so much. thank you to the panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> house veterans' affairs committee chairman jess miller is the guest this week. he will talk about issues

facing veterans including jobs and white officials have been paid bonuses what the backlog continues to grow. 10:00 p.m.day at here on c-span. >> this weekend, at a look at the state of latino america including jobs in foreign policy. hosted by tavis smiley. join us sunday at some 30 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> ronald reagan massively make mistakes on defense. the defense budget was not just a waste of money.

it is what created the war machine that was used to create so much havoc in the world's and create so much anger and problems throughout the world that were so unnecessary that made as an imperial power. that was a real negative. on the other hand he did stand up for limiting these states -- the state. the government is not a solution to every big problem. if and way down the private economy. the idea of technological change, at the idea that people should make their decisions with bells and think -- without some washington, i agree with those things.

fiscally he lost it. he really needed to stand up for more than a deficit. he spent a lifetime as the opponent of deficit spending there ever was. he left a massive deficit which permitted his followers to say reagan prove deficits don't matter. >> sunday at 8:00. >> next remarks from bill clinton at the 20th anniversary of the holocaust museum. this is just over an hour.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome today's honored speakers, the director of the holocaust museum. thebernstein, chair of holocaust museum. lisa zaid, a granddaughter of four holocaust survivors. world war ii veteran scottie. the founding chairman of the united states holocaust museum. [applause] and president bill clinton, founder of the clinton foundation and 42nd president the united states. please rise for the army flags. ♪

>> the second infantry division and 82nd airborne division. the fourth infantry division and. the eighth infantry division and 14th armored division.

the 26th infantry division and 12th armored division. the 29th infantry division and 11th armored division. the 30th infantry division and 10th armored division.

the 36th infantry division and ninth armored division. the 42nd infantry division and eighth armored division. the 45th infantry division and sixth armored division. and63rd infantry division fourth armored division.

the 65th infantry division and third armored division. the 69th infantry division and 104th infantry division. the 71st infantry division and 103rd infantry division.

the 80th infantry division and 99th infantry division. the 83rd infantry division and 95th infantry division. and84th infantry division 19th infantry division. the 86 infantry division and

89th infantry division. >> please remain standing for the presentation of the national colors.

♪ ♪

>> antonio will now lead us in singing the national anthem. >> oh say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming brightroad stripes and

stars through the perilous fight ore the ramparts we watch were so gallantly streaming and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave ore the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪

♪ ♪ >> please be seated. please welcome tom bernstein, chairman of the united states holocaust memorial museum. >> good morning and thank you so much for joining us. i have seen these flags many times. the never fail to move me. inthis day at this moment time they are particularly meaningful. they remind is what the museum stands for and what many of you know firsthand, the fragility of freedom and the courage and sacrifice in necessary to preserve it. today these flags also remind us that we are at a turning

point. our best teachers are here today. we know they're not here forever. fortunately, this museum is here forever. [applause] i am so pleased to announce that we give 843 and 130 world war ii veterans with us. we will pay special tribute to them later. now i want to recognize a few other extraordinary guests. as some of you know, last night

we presented the eli wiesel award. not here today but with us in. is the grandson of martha sharp who left her children and went to europe as representative of the american unitarian association to establish networks to help jews trying to flee. for secured safe passage hundreds. next -- [applause] next we have a young man in polenta made a possible for several jewish women to hide in a small village, even concealing their identity from parents.

finally, mark, who with his father worked in southern france not only providing false identification cards, food, and money that helped hundreds of jews escape. these remarkable individuals and all the other 24,000 rescuers

will forever be an inspiration to all of us. having all of these eyewitnesses reminds us of the many more who are not here today. please stand for a moment of silence in their memory. thank you. be seated, please. we are also delighted to have with us today many institutional partners from all over the u.s. and europe including three senior officials who will be

part of a presentation later this morning on holocaust education in their countries. the german defense minister. polish minister of culture and national heritage. and french ambassador at large for human-rights, francois zimerlay. it is my pleasure to recognize three individuals who were here 20 years ago at our opening, director sarah bloomfield. ourding chairman and guiding spirit, elie wiesel and our guest president, bill clinton.

we will hear from them shortly. looking out into this crowd, i feel inspired and hopeful. i am inspired by the many young faces. some are descendants of survivors or veterans. many are not. they are here not because of a family connection but because they recognize the importance of our mission for the future their role in it. the museum's motto is "what you

do matters." we know from the holocaust that it is the actions of young people who are the change agents in any society that will shape the future. some of my most powerful memories are breaking my three teenage children through the museum and being part of that transformative experience with them. like all kids, they like technology. they realized technological progress must never be confused with moral progress. here they confront profound truths about human nature from the awful to inspirational. here they are prepared along with millions of other young people for their moral responsibilities in an increasingly uncertain future. to guide the future of our museum, i am pleased to introduce my dear friend,

director sara bloomfield. >> thank you for being here, especially president clinton. we welcome you back. as we mark this milestone and celebrate the in during continuity of our cause, we are joined again by our visionary leader elie wiesel who is with us on the dedication to decades ago. i'll never forget what he said. standing before thousands, he declared the museum is not an answer. it is a question. with those words, he told the world that the purpose of the

museum is not only to reveal the past but to serve as a constant provocation for the future. ever since, this place has challenged leaders and students and teachers from here and everywhere to look inside themselves, to look themselves and to wrestle with some of the most essential issues of human behavior in modern society. to that overwhelming question, does memory have the power to change the world 20 years on? our answer is a resounding "yes." today's new world demands new questions.

what will our museum be in the 21st century? how will the holocaust speak across generations? how powerfully will that voice be heard? we believe it history must shape the history yet to be lived. we must never cease to ask the hardest question of all, "how was the holocaust allowed to happen?" there are many answers. a shameful event took place 70 years ago at the height of the holocaust when representatives of the american and british government met in bermuda to find a solution to the growing refugee problem. the bermuda conference of april 1943 was not the result of outrage against evil or determination to do good or concern for jews. it was a show that yielded nothing but an optimistic press release and a dreary bureaucratic report released a month later.

toamerican official wrote the secretary of state "the bermuda conference was an effective. we knew it would be." one headline read "scant hope seen for victims." deathose victims a sentence had been written. at the same time, far from the bright sunshine of that empty spectacle, some of the victims were desperately trying against all odds. the day it opened was the very day the uprising flared across

the warsaw ghetto. the jews kept the germans at bay for over a month. the allies received news that the above jews has sent a radio message to the west. it ended with two simple words, "save us." that is why this museum sits in the most powerful city in the world. that is why it sits just blocks from the white house and the state department, from the very institutions that failed to save them. this is why it reaches citizens in all 50 states. the holocaust is a story of power. the figure of power held by the allies. manynwillingness of too people everywhere to speak to take a stand, to use their own

power as individuals. the abuse of power is just one of the great questions that elie and our other founders envisioned. the museum makes sure that the millions we reach each year will not only look back at the holocaust and ask "what would i have done?" bill will look ahead to dangers unimaginable and ask themselves "what will i do?" we welcome to young women who answered that with impressive zeal. >> it is my honor to be here today.

my great-grandfather died trying to save his community during the holocaust. as jews were being deported, and he led a group of 97 people into the forests of poland hoping they might have a better chance to survive. of these 97 people with their entire lives ahead of them, generations of talent, only three survived. one was my grandfather. when he survived, it was the american army who nursed him back to health in a displaced persons camp in germany. to this day the american flag is the largest one in their entire neighborhoods.

poland will never tell this story. it will never remember the rich and vibrant lives of these individuals. in our country, we built a place of memory. we built in not just for them up for ourselves, for the sake of humanity. when i walked into the holocaust memorial museum and i look at the thousands of photographs we have any million pages of archives and testimony of of veterans and artifacts the rescue, i hear the voice of my family speaking to me as if they are right there next to me. i hear the voices of all of the other families who did not make it saying "you must bear and tell our stories."

i feel a deep sense of commitment and obligation to carry these into the future. on behalf of those who were not here with us to do it themselves. to the survivors who are here today, i promise you this, your lives will always be remembered and honored by us. we will never forget you or the beautiful families from which you came. [applause] of very center of democracy freedom in the world, you have permanent home in our museum. we will continue to make your voice is heard by future generations as we have with the 35 million visitors who have walked through our doors in the last 20 years.

to the veterans who are here, i stand before you with the humility and respect. specifically the granddaughter of auschwitz aq1797 as the number states on my grandmother's arm, i thank you for your bravery and service and not just to this country but to an even higher moral cause, to humanity in general.

to ensure these stories liketo y family is live on it will take many passionate voices. mine will be one. there'll be others. the legacy is an inherited one for me, for rebekah it is a chosen one. she was actively involved in one of the museum programs for high school students and then as a high school english teacher herself she taught the holocaust to her students. today she's a member of the museum staff, bringing holocaust education to young people throughout the country and world. please welcome rebecca. [applause] i