and on private life. that does seem like a big contradiction. a conservative woman who would make that decision to resolve it is easy for me to imagine a conservative woman who would resolve decision to that contradiction in favor of freedom, individual rights, and privacy. >> i think that is true, and i think they feel like for now the republican party is welcoming enough, in terms of economic policies and so on. and on the abortion part, they are holding their nose. and there are pro-choice republican women in office. those are the women who are growing more frustrated with the emphasis on republican party antiabortion policy. but i think it is not clean. i agree that there are certain contradictions, but they don't believe the democratic party represents the things they are most concerned with. it is an issue salience factor.

yes, they are as pro-choice and so on, but in terms of what the government should be doing and things they are concerned about economically, they still feel more comfortable in the republican party and that is what they choose to focus on. >> i want to ask you one very fundamental question, which is, is there a really any benefit to finding more common ground? we have been talking as though there is. and on some level, there seems to be an idea that needs no defense, but would it make it a difference politically to find more common ground? >> i think there are some places where it would. the one area that i think women should work together and cross ideological lines is in media sexism. there is no reason there needs to be a divide among women ideologically about how media, particularly media coverage of women running for office or in office, there is no reason there

needs to be an ideological divide in terms of assessing or evaluating that. there is a group that has formed recently called "name it, change it" and they are coming out everywhere. and they have come out, and they are calling it out on everyone. the national organization for women critiqued "newsweek," and they were talking about michele bachmann, calling her the queen of rage, and it was a very unflattering photograph, so i think that is really an area that does not make any sense to me, why you cannot have women working together to say this is problematic. you are hindering women in politics because of that, so that would be one area. >> let me say something. this is a subject for another conversation, but i would love to understand more how much the mainstream media is guilty of having promulgated some of these stereotypes in the first place. >> which ones? >> the stereotypes that

conservative women have about feminists and that feminists have about conservative women. >> that is interesting. in terms of who the media chooses to speak and whether or not -- there certainly is more, if you look at major news networks and the one, i think it is changing slightly, but conservative women have been doing a good job getting themselves on television and representing conservatives, because it is a novelty at this point. the other area -- just in terms of saying, we need more women in elected office, and this becomes more challenging, because like i said earlier, there are women, and then there are ideological divides. there are organizations that are nonpartisan. they do run into some challenges, where they are promoting women, where if they are conservative, the women may be feminists or vice versa, so it does present some challenges about descriptive versus substantive representation, as

political scientists like to call it. you may be a woman, but you may not be acting in my interest. >> thank you very much. let's open it up to questions that people are here to ask. >> in the conservative view, feminist women not supporting conservative candidates, did you ask them if they support liberal women candidates, because they are women? and what was their response? >> absolutely. >> this is changing, and this is one of the things i have talked about, but it has never been an explicit goal of conservative women's group to get women in elected positions of power until recently, which really started with sarah palin, but it has been a goal of feminist organizations, and i know you were saying that they would not support palin, and i think that is true, but it does require feminist groups to be more

specific in terms of what they care about in promoting women and electing women in office, so they do not see it as contradictory. it has never been a stated goal for them to get more women in elected office, and so it really was not a problem for them. if that answers the question. yeah. >> what about ethnic diversity? >> right. again, i will not -- to state that organizations and the women that i interviewed and study are at -- our national and delete. you do not get a ton of diversity. there is some diversity among my interviewees, more age diversity, and i have one who is 89, and i have also interviewed some college women activist to get some perspective, so it was interesting for me to get some perspective there. there is some ethnic and racial diversity, but not a lot. what i am calling the elite level, in terms of surveys,

of people who identify as conservative, or so on, there is a bit more difference there. >> so the feminine toughness frame that you're talking about is not, the feminine part of it is not new at all, because we go back into the 1900s, and people were using their femininity or their roles as mothers to support their political stances, . we should vote because we have this view that men do not have, and that is held in politics. we are for peace, because we know what war does to the men and children, and when women for peace was called in front of congress, they brought their children and, and they are very interested to show that they were traditionally feminine, so it is not new. it is like these women are 100 years behind the times, and they are not offering something that is strikingly new to politics, so that brings me to my question. you are claiming that this

conservative women's activism has cultural significance and is transforming conservative values. i do not see how they are contributing to the conservative or transforming, really, the conservative agenda in the way that some people may point you -- point to the women in the democratic party, so i am actually interested in the impact of these women in the party at large. >> to the first point, briefly, i do not know that these women, that it is new or they are necessarily behind the times, per se. it is just what they did. you are right about maternalist policies, that was both sides. it is not really you for conservative women either. it is just the way they have been doing it for women in an office. in terms of shifting or having an impact on the republican party, i think that just the more women who are -- studies -- currently, republican women do

not fare well when they do in primaries, in part because people think they are too liberal, though there is an idea that women who run for office may be more feminist, so from the perspective of the republican party, the more conservative women you have out there running for office and making these claims, you may help republican women run for office. you will shift the idea that you do not have to be a man to be a conservative, which helps republican party. i think that is incredibly important for them, and the other thing is there is a gender gap, and the gender gap i am talking about is that women as a whole, and it is not just factor,nder, race is a prefer democratic candidates, particularly in the elections, and so on. to the extent you can get more women running for office and more conservative women out there and being more politically active, i think you may have some impact on that.

and, again, this is from the perspective of the party. the final piece of this is part of the reason it is a relatively low number of republican women in office is the republican party has not done a particularly good job of recruiting and training and promoting republican women for office, so the more the leaders say this is a problem, i think that would have impact on the way the republican party deals with candidates. women candidates. >> well, thank you. thank you for coming. thank you, especially, professor schreiber, for your comments. [applause] >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the u.s. house will return a week from today to wrap up the hundred 13 first session. they will be back for legislative work on tuesday the .eventh house democratic nancy pelosi releasing a statement say neglecting to extent

unemployment benefits is a moral abdication of our obligation to support those who work hard and play by the rules. we expect more from congress when they return. returning for legislative work on january 7. 20 years ago -- over a year ago that 20-year-old adam lanza answered sandy hook elementary school and killed 20 children and six adults. connecticut state police plan to release thousands of pages of police documents this afternoon from that investigation. it was not shooting that launched a debate about gun violence and led congress to pass legislation this past year requiring background checks. it is one of the topics we have featured on our year in review. we will show you that today at 1:50 eastern. news that a u.s. judge has concluded that the national security agency's collection of telephone data is lawful.

reuters is reporting u.s. saidict judge in manhattan there was no evidence the government used any of people kelephone metadata -- of albul telephone metadata for any other reason than to investigate and disrupt terrorist attacks. middle or high school student, the video competition wants to know what is the most important issue congress should address jacob make a video and include c-span programming for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. with $100,000 of total prizes. yet more info at studentcam.org. 300 global city leaders are coming up this evening -- coming up this even is senate emeritus richard baker and his book.

tonight beginning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. after that, a look at the event's in washington that led day government16 shutdown. highlights from the house debate and congressional briefings on "year in review" tonight. at 9:00, a presentation of ," jacqueline kennedy, first lady from 1961 -1963. we now have secular norms instead of theological norms that govern our acceptance or rejection of the ways in which a god or goddess can speak to people and what impact that has. for instance, the branch davidians. koresh saying he had a special insight into the bible. that helped numbers of the

community understand the book of revelation better, allowing them to understand that they are living in the end times in a way most americans don't accept. does not seemelf to be a problem. when it leads to other elements that trigger both law enforcement concern as well as the popular press' concern, suddenly the idea of somebody listening to god and having his followers do things that seem to to national norms, that is dangerous. that needs to be controlled. >> wessling university professor -- wesleyan university professor that religious persecution has been prevalent since the 1800s. sunday night at nine on after words on c-span2.

>> 300 global city leaders gathered in new york city for the first city lab summit. here in the opening session, safetyamined public technologies and how they impact privacy concerns. conversations with boston and new york city police commissioner's. this is just over one hour. >> presented by the atlantic, the aspen institute, and bloomberg philanthropy. please welcome the president

and chief executive officer of the aspen institute and moderator of public safety, policy and new technologies. program participants include ann cavoukain, the commissioner from the office of privacy, and from ontario, canada, the chief executive officer of the cybersecurity, and a professor of law at the university of california, berkeley. >> welcome, everybody. this is our co-host. good to see you. this is our most interesting of all panels. it is changing in our lives -- technologiesin new and the innovations we are facing impinge on our personal privacy and liberty. found the aspen

homeland security group in a nice restaurant in washington. she took me out with janet napolitano and we looks at these issues. tell me, jane, the cyber explosion -- how has that affected the way you do homeland security? >> running concurrent to the expansion of the internet, which is instantaneous and growing by a hundred connections a minute, is a global cyber awakening. all of us on the internet are instantly connected to information we need, making data liquidity something that is not only important and powerful, but in all of our hands. this cyber awakening has three important implications. first, while we know a lot about people on the internet. we know people almost entirely as consumers, and not as citizens. governments interface with

people as citizens. number two, the law which is supposed to anticipate the familiar and guide us is neither guide nor guardian in this environment. and third, the government has not been in the game in cyberspace, largely because they are not the most powerful actors. >> what happens is -- when you're at homeland security and worried about a pattern of activity, you can find a thousand times more information than you could have 50 years ago, about a person. give me some examples of how that works and why we should or should not worry about it. >> a way to think about how it works is how we have been fighting terrorism over the past dozen years. the basic theory has been that bad guys are out there are trying to come here. the way we need to prevent terrorism is to find them where they are and keep them where fix them abroad.

-- keep them where they are, fix them abroad. we have used intelligence, the military, and our international partnerships, nato, and other governments. we want identify where they are and prevent them from coming, but what if they are here. what if there are already individuals in the united states who affiliate with others and mean others harm? how will our partnerships work? we need a different approach to be able to say to the american public that your government is doing everything it can to keep you safe. >> let me take a specific example. there are cameras all over midtown manhattan. course, perhaps luckily there were cameras near the end of the marathon. you now have new ways of using -- biometrictacle optical scans to tell faces. there are other devices where

you can tell people's faces. tell me how that works. can you actually know where anybody of interest is at any moment? do you have to have new rules when you deal with that? >> with technologies, increasingly we can know where most people are at any moment. when they are -- >> can you give me an example of doing that? >> the commissioner is here from boston. retracing steps based on personal mobile individuals have and the calls they made. that has been ripped -- has been available for a long. of -- that has been available for a long period of time. using this to fight crime and examine what is happened is an important component of law enforcement and policing in the community. as people understand the consequences of this ever present knowledge, certainly our sensibilities are changing.

the rules will change with them. >> it feels a bit big brother-ish that at any given moment the government knows where i am. >> the more serious problem is little sister, not big brother. it is companies knowing and tattling on you, sharing your purchasing history. there was a father wondering why his young daughter was getting pregnancy literature. pregnancy testing literature. it turned out her browsing habits suggested she was pregnant, and she was. >> before we go on. a different type of question. there is now no secretary of homeland security for the united states. nobody has filled your job -- there is no deputy of homeland security. washington seems totally

dysfunctional, we cannot even fill jobs in washington now. is that a problem? >> it is a problem if the process is broken down. the processes have, in many ways, broken down. it is not a problem because, in the particular case of homeland security, because they are filling the positions on an active basis. i have a military background. the leadership rotates all the time and everyone is expected to be trained and ready to step into a leadership position. leadership is not a problem. to your broader question, i don't think anyone would accuse washington of being a weld oiled machine at the moment. >> how are innovations affecting our privacy yucca >> i must respond to one thing. i must respond to one thing. we have to worry about the brother. it is not just a matter of companies engaging in this kind of intrusive activity, but the states. surveillance by the states has

never been greater and is never lacked as much transparency, as we have learned as a result of snowden. let us not suggest that surveillance by the state is not a serious matter. it is increasingly serious. it threatens our freedom and our liberty. the preamble to the constitution is "we the people." it is about living life that is free and free from surveillance. i am not talking about the bad guys. everyone agrees we want to get the bad guys. we have to find a way of doing surveillance and law enforcement and counterterrorism and privacy, on of privacy.lusiv that is what we have developed with privacy by design. it is all about getting privacy protection into technology, business practices, operational

processes. and working with the government to do this. if you think that is a pipe dream -- i was invited to speak at the pentagon in march because they were attracted to privacy by design. privacy and surveillance. privacy and counter terrorism. they invited me back in august and we had a full day's session on how do you do privacy and counterterrorism. there was a lot of interest in this. let me put this on the table. it is not do not worry about the state. worry about the state. let's do something to assure that our privacy, which is the underpinning of freedom, it is a fundamental human right. it is the underpinning of freedom. it has a enormous societal value. >> when you talked about, in your papers, you talk about it not being a trade-off. it is not either or. >> exactly. >> you can have privacy and

security by using technologies , -- you just touched on it a moment ago. explain how those technologies work. >> we talk about abandoning the zero-sum model where it is one or the other. you have what we consider unnecessary trade-offs. abandon the trade-off. this is where innovation comes in. privacy is essential to innovation. privacy is necessary for innovation because it breeds new ideas and creativity. biometrics are a great example. we have biometric encryption, you can get the values of isometrics, facial recognition, fingerprints -- but it is encrypted, so that the only way in which you can get any access is if you are properly authorized. >> if i walk through grand essential, they are picking me

ally, if they need to trace me, they would have to get a court order to do that. >> yes. they would have to have grounds to access the kind of information by law enforcement. we have done that with video surveillance cameras. you can encode encrypt the video stream such that only when it is properly required you can have access. we have done this in toronto. >> jane, really quickly, would that be fine with the people of homeland security? >> it is already in place and homeland security. more people than there are on the planet has moved through 10 assay systems -- through tsa systems. data acquisition is never the point. there's never been a privacy breach in tsa with that kind of information. i am endorsing the notion that you can have privacy and security. they can travel together.

>> you got a bit worked up, i was going to ask more question -- why is privacy such an important good? when i was growing up, if i walk to the drugstore in new orleans and bought a pack of cigarettes, it would take seven to 10 minutes before both of my parents would know that. i had no privacy, in that regard. i think sometimes people confuse privacy, which is a word we all love, which -- what they mean is anonymity. for 2000 years, years we have not had anonymity. if i go do something in my town where i grew up, my community, people kind of know. without anonymity, we tend to behave better than we do with

anonymity. do you feel that we need to preserve anonymity as we go about our lives? >> let me respond to one thing before i answer that. you said in your small, town your parents know where you are. but what did not happen is that that information was not tracked forever. right now, the ability to track information, your whereabouts, your mobility, the ability to retain this information and have it used in ways you never contemplated, and in ways it was never intended, that is one of the fundamental differences. the reason we need privacy is -- it is such a basic concept. privacy is like breathing. you take it for granted until you need it. you need air and you are being deprived. if you look at states, the first

-- states that have morphed into totalitarian states. the first thread to unravel is privacy. academics have studied this. without privacy you cannot have freedom. >> y? >> the opposite suggests that the state should know everything you do. >> but let's not go to the extreme opposite? >> that is where you morphed. >> why would you have to morph? >> people often say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. nonsense. the presumption is that somehow departments the have every right to have access and information about you. i am not talking about your house or your bedroom, but all your activities that you engage in. it is an absurd proposition. privacy is about control, personal control. that the individual has the ability to control the information. >> should i be able to travel

privately on an airline? >> it is not about concealment, is about your choice of how you use information. >> if i travel, should that remain private? >> there are places where you are required by law to give information. you give it gladly or you do not engage in that behavior. if you fly, we all have taxes, the irs. all acceptable. but those are legitimate uses of that information. the protection of that information by those organizations, dhs, irs, is tightly controlled. >> what about buying a gun? >> we can get into the gun debate. be the point is laws has to followed. the converse to that is that the government departments collecting that information are only permitted to use that information for a narrow purpose. ity are not intended to use

for secondary purposes. it is very narrow. privacy is about freedom and your ability to largely go about your activities as you wish subject to limited exceptions and subject to law enforcement. i am just asking questions. you say it is for limited purposes. do you feel we are using that information for purposes for which it is not intended to that -- today, right now, say in jane's department. >> i am not going to comment about james department. >> homeland security. >> there is no issue. i will point to the nsa revelations. in canada, the same kind of thing. that has revealed the massive scale of information about law abiding citizens being collected. if you want the reference i will tell you, an article on false positives.

is you areitive identified as being a potential terrorist and you're not. a false hit. falseormity of the positives that have resulted from these searches is staggering and should be free andble to democratic societies. it is unacceptable. those people are not off the list. there are these false positives, until they are cleared, you can go through enormous problems and anxieties. >> go ahead. >> i feel like a visitor from outer space here. york ise story in new a distinctions from the ordinary privacy and municipal problems story. a solvedrst instance, problem with that was intractable -- the homicide rate

in new york this year will be rate86% from the homicide in the same city with the same population and the same structural problems 30 years ago. that is astonishing. is that thehing changes that took place are relatively low-tech. they are all located in public places. going to be important when we center the conversation on privacy. the changes that took place where a computer being able to identify for the police force where crimes keep happening and where public drug markets are located. that isn't rocket science even circa 1975. it was a change in policing strategy and it worked very well.

now, what about privacy? well, in a funny sense, if you're talking about public places, you're talking about a serious problem that i think -- but i think privacy is the wrong word for it. the reason for that is public places are too dangerous for the autonomy we associate normally with privacy. so for instance, if you want to talk about 700,000 stops and frisks in 2011 and 2012 and the fact that they keep talk -- the fact that they keep happening to the same people in the same neighborhoods and the false positive rate is hovering around 98% as ann expressed, you have a serious cost, serious problem, serious benefits. it's not about privacy. what it's about is government

having to respect the dignity and autonomy of people in the streets even though they know things about them that require a relationship between government and -- >> how has technology and the new command center we're going to see today change that? >> it doesn't change that. that's the relationship between individual people if machines could stop us and frisk us, that does happen in the airports, folks that are going to travel. in a funny sense, the indignity in the process, the power competition when two people with too much testosterones are on the sending and receiving ends of the stops and frisks doesn't happen. this is human relations and i

think as soon as what you have is a polite use of government, a polite use of technology. and some notion that the autonomy of the false positive if everybody who is stopped and frisked is treated as if they were guilty, then you're going be 99% wrong. on the other hand, i don't mind going through a machine if i'm one of 100,000 people who is coming to see the president of the united states and there are people who are trying to make sure that none of the 100,000 are armed and dangerous. >> let me open it up, if i may, if we can turn the lights up a little bit so i can see. raise your hands, questions? >> back to your innovation comment? >> yeah. >> and this gentleman here.

>> let ann get one quick comment there. >> i never answered -- the question about innovation. i will make this really fast. the reason privacy is so important to innovation, i say this as a psychologist, we have a limited amount of bandwidth. we have a limited ability to focus on various things if we're living in a society we think we're constantly being surveyed. people are watching this. let's fast-forward this and say that everyone is watching us all the time. imagine you live in the time of nazi germany which is, of course, nonsense. if you live in the society where you were constantly being surveyed and watched? what do you do? engage in self protective behavior. attempting to shield their behavior. not because they're doing anything wrong, but they don't like to be watched and surveyed. what happens is -- the focus

shifts away from creativity and risk taking which you need for innovative pursuits. because there's limited amount of what you can focus on. the notion of cognitive bandwidth is important. we want to encourage freedom and the notion that you're not constantly under surveillance. one of the professors here at economist. leading he had a book about how important freedom was to innovation. he was worried china wasn't going in that direction because their freedom is restricted. innovation was coming to a halt. privacy is not sufficient, but essential to innovative pursuits. >> i am not going to sit here and listen to comparisons to nazi germany. >> she didn't mean it that way. she pulled it back. we get her pull-back.

>> i meant no disrespect at all. nothing like that. what i say is if you look at countries like that and you look at what changed in those societies during a time of heightened surveillance, what changes is people alter their behavior. they automatically shield -- almost instinctively -- and what goes is innovation, creativity, and freedom. >> what's happening right now, three norms are emerging, not only in this society, but globally. people have expectations of inclusivity. nothing about us without us. they have expectations of transparency. what's going on? they have expectations of reciprocity. if it's good enough for you, making me do this or are you doing this? in response to this. so this is -- there are global movement incidents and reactions to excesses. the privacy community is not the only one outraged. >> yes, sir. >> mayor of portland. we had an officer involved shooting that was resolved thisse a young couple held

over their window and filmed this. i tried on the google glasses, i realized if we gave one of these to each officer they could just say start filming. this is an important discussion. we in cities are going to have to figure it out. anyone think that the federal communications commission is going to keep up with this pace of change? >> there is no acc commissioner, either. -- no fcc commissioner, either. add it to the list. >> so we have to figure out what the boundaries and protocols are for the use of technology and public safety. because it's exploding quickly. i would be interested if any of the panelists have any thoughts on who the regulator might be if not us at the municipal level, then whom? >> frank first. >> i can tell you how regulations will be involved. that is if the security device

is useful, it will be tried at the municipal level and if there are any norms that are going be invoked to limit it, they will probably be in different levels. we're sitting here in a city where there's an ongoing conversation now with the police department that innovates with security, and a federal court that tries to protect when there are costs imposed. but the point that i think i want to make is that first of all, cameras are so cheap now that in public places, if what you're concerned about is the right not to be filmed, game over. we now are going to be living lives of record in public spaces. >> everything you do in public space will be on youtube at some point.

>> it can be on youtube. someone has to be interested in it. >> i've watched youtube. that's not true. [laughter] >> you don't like cats. >> correct. >> okay. the truth is, the issue that's going be crystallized in public space isn't privacy in that world. it's dignity and autonomy. it's regulating the way in which power is used rather than removing the power. and that's going to involve balances, obviously. but it's not a technology issue so much as a human relations and political issue. you have got to be comfortable with it. >> i don't disagree.

it's both. human relations and technology. if i can just respond -- i work with my police chief all the time in toronto, canada. he has a slide he uses with the police officers saying that we have to take a positive sum approach to policing and privacy -- that you do both. that of course there are cameras. we have surveillance cameras. there are ways to do it that heightened privacy protection. not to the exclusion of cameras. of course, they're everywhere. but when it's done by the police, the state, you can we use and privacy protection. >> what about when it's not. everybody is talking about google glass? >> google glass is interesting. issue is that it can record you and do all those things. but unlike the camera where the person being recorded has no notion that you're doing it. you don't have that notion with google glass. they identified certain light

fixtures that come on. when recording is taking place. >> you already have a way to hack so the light does not come on. >> point-counterpoint. they're aware of the issues and actively trying to find measures to make google glass more visible and transparent. >> trust me, somebody will have a glass soon that's not transparent. even if it's -- >> it's not that you can't up the ante. but the point is that it's not a zero sum game. you can have privacy and functionality. we have demonstrated this in those other areas. >> we are talking about security. security is something that their societies assigned to their governments to handle. we want a safe street, governments police. governments are being the monopolist in security space and they are in all except cyberspace. governments have not given the responsibility in cyberspace to

keep us secure. as we look at these trends in technology, on the one hand, we have an intelligence community that thinks it's 1947 and information is hard to get and the technology doesn't exist. but the most powerful companies in cyberspace have demonstrated the highly reliable, highly lucrative, important -- >> right out of time. let me get this one question and. >> hi, andrew from personal democracy region. if we asked the people in the audience how many times they read a terms of service all the way through before they click agree, they would have a small show of hands. we're addicted to these technologies and we're arguing today about the battle between how big brother or little sister are using our data. what's the role that the public can play in this debate? what can we do ousts to insist -- what can we do ourselves to consists -- what can we do ourselves to insist on a mode of behavior, not only

by big brother and little sister, but among ousts to ensure that we can ensure the privacies and security. >> everybody gets to use that as their final answer. >> again, it seems to me that the question is about the use of power. and technology is a power. but it is used in human relationships and so the politics of sorting through its solution is going to be a politics of individual dignity in power relations. >> jane. >> it's the accountability mechanism of this country that's in the hands of the people that is the most powerful mechanism of keeping the government honest in evolving in a complex situation. >> you have to speak out, you have a strong voice. speak out and let your politicians know what you want for the first time ever, 6 out ever since ans,

polling happened, 6 out of 10 americans have rated privacy and civil liberties are more important to them than public safety and security. that's never happened before. you have to tell the government that you expect transparency, openness on their part, and hold them accountable. >> that's because 6 in 10 take security for granted. >> i would challenge that completely. privacy has traditionally been relegated to a lower category. now, with all of the revelations, as to how much the people don't know about what the government is doing, people are truly astounded and they don't want that anymore and they're fighting back. that's what i urge you to do. >> that sets up our next panel. thank you. let me welcome two people who are on the front lines of this. thank you all very much. thank you two people who are on the front lines of this. ,reak alley, -- ray kelly

commissioner of the city of new york. we have talked about how crime has gone down. colleague edd davis, police commissioner of the city of boston. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> did you have any reactions to what you just heard? >> i did not hear. i got here late. >> when you get your your command center. tell us how that works and tell us the concerns you have about how that might invade privacy or cause people to react against you for invading their privacy. the command center that can watch somebody putting down a bag in grand central. >> it is not a command center. it is the lower manhattan security coordination center. it has both public and private stake holders, police officers, and representatives of major companies. >> tell me what it does.

>> what it does is it monitors an array of cameras now about 5,000 cameras. many of them are smart cameras. not all, but by smart, i mean you can do video analytics on these cameras. for instance, if you want to go back 28 days, you want to see someone wearing a red shirt, algorithms, put the information up and it will come up quickly. 28 days, after 30 days, it erases automatically. we put that in voluntarily. we worked with privacy advocates. we knew there would be some concerns as we put in a major camera system. we put in a protocol on our website that delineates the fact that they even race -- they even

erase- the fact that they after 30 days. i haven't heard major privacy concerns raised as a result the security initiative. and i believe that a lot of it was forestalled by working with the privacy advocates before we put the system in. >> tell many a little more about what new technologies you're using and give me a couple of examples of how it worked even though some people might have concerns about it. >> as i mentioned, we have the smart cameras that have license plate readers that are now all over law enforcement. they're really amazing pieces of equipment. because you can drive down the street at 60 miles per hour with license plate readers on the patrol car and read the license plates on both sides of the street. it's an effective tool. we have radiation detectors now that aren't actually worn as pagers which will tell you

specifically let's say where the radio active material is moving. this is now sort of a state of the art. something else we may be working with is facial recognition. which you may have spoken about here. that is very much work in progress. we have solved dozens of cases as a result of emerging official technology capabilities. we have software now that that enables a -- us to do a whole host of things. an eye insert. you can see someone whose eyes are closed. put the eyes in. mirror imagining, half a face. you can do the whole face. that is moving along. >> and the earlier panel, frank just said that if instead of having stop and frisk, there was way.a more automatic if you could detect people with

less, that would be invasive -- people with gu ns, that would be less invasive to autonomy. >> we've been looking at something and looking at it for several years. working for metropolitan police and the d.o.d. research component. called terra hertz technology. everybody emits tera hertz radiation. and what it does is enables you to see someone carrying a weapon. the problem is so far that the device developed is too big. it does not have the range. we know what cell phones were like in 1986. we believe that the technology will get better. that would be a major breakthrough as far as finding weapons on the street. >> can you imagine, 10 years from now that technology being deployed around the city, just

like you have cameras recording where people go, you could notice that somebody with the gun is moving in a certain neighborhood? >> not without a major fight. i think our lawyers are looking at the issues of -- fourth amendment issues are involved there. but this is -- this is something that you do in increments. and i don't know if ten years from now you see them, you know, positioned all over. you have to develop the technology and i think they would be concerns raised by -- by privacy advocates. >> if you have privacy concerns in lower manhattan, you have advocates sitting with you, how do you do that? do you have in your department specialists in privacy and ethics issues? >> we do not have privacy advocates sitting down there. but we do have attorneys that focus on this, the protocols that we put together by our attorneys. obviously, we live in the mostly -- in the most litigious city in

the world. we have to be aware of ongoing litigation. certainly, privacy issues are among them. >> commissioner davis, walk us through how technology help you after the boston marathon. >> i was at the marathon finish line before the bombs went off. after they went off, i recognized that there were thousands of cameras there. not just cameras along the street, which were basically owned by businesses. the city had very few cameras in that particular area. but we did have thousands of people who have iphones taking still shots and video of the finish line. it was my estimation based on , what i was seeing that no one could , move through the crowd without being observed. so after the bombs went off, our immediate focus is on retrieving as much video as we could get. the video with the business is extremely important. we went to crowd sourcing on the internet and asked people to send us every clip and video shot they had taken.

they came in so quickly that the fbi computer crashed. we had to rely on twitter and facebook to retrieve some of the photos. we got them all compiled in a hastily set up command post. it started with one computer. 12 computers there at the end at -- they were working around the clock going through that information. >> you said you asked people to send them in, did you collect privately-taken photographs without people's permission but doing it from public sites such as twitter or facebook and others where you could say, okay, these are people who posted at the boston marathon, let us examine those photographs as well? >> we did everything possible. >> do you have concerns about people saying those photographs were put privately on the facebook accounts? >> the state of law is what we operate under.

that's missed in the conversation. ray and i operate off of what's constitutionally acceptable. the supreme court said if this information in the public place, the video information in a public place, we can look at that. it's a little less clear as you get to facebook and twitter, right now, there are places that we can go legally and we go there. the problem with our profession is that unlike the medical profession with medical ethicists, we don't have that here. we operate off of a supreme court decision that always happens after the fact. so we're always behind the curve when it comes to change like we're seeing right now. we need to -- we need to look at that. we need to start a conversation among police officials in the community to talk about what's right and wrong. george orwell was about 20 years off. but we are here now. it's come at us so fast, no one knows how to deal with it. >> the boston bombers, afterwards, technology kicks

into action immediately. was there a way to use technology more effectively to know these are bad actors planning something? >> you know, i think we have been focussed externally. we looked at the security apparatus in the federal government. ray has done a tremendous job here in making a local. if you're dealing with boston, home grown extremists radicalized on the internet, a new system has to be thought about. and debated with the public as to what the role of local police should be in that environment, it's clearly a threat that we're facing right now. we need to do more. i wish there was a computer system that we could find that would say these are the guys. but it's more about connecting with the community and having good contacts in communities throughout the city. and being transparent and open about that.

that is what you need to do. >> transparency and openness, it's come up three or four times. let me ask you a question. suppose all those edward snowden revelations, instead of edward snowden revelations, the government just said, here's what we're doing. we're going to make this public right away. we're doing these type of things. if you don't like it, call your congressman. would that have been a better way to approach it? >> i believe so. i said that previously. i think the american public could accept the need for that. and actually this was made public in a sort of bizarre sort of a way. it was -- well, you should have known about it. and we know how restricted it was in terms of access to the public. i think that was a mistake. now it seems like these things are -- >> how are you trying to be very transparent without compromising your methods and operations? >> obviously, we're not going to breach confidentiality as far as specific investigations are

concerned. but we have people such as this group here will come in, take a look at the equipment we have, the processes that we use. we have many community groups. i have a muslim advisory council i meet with. we have a tactics and strategies committee made primarily of leading members of the african-american community in this city. we have a very good dialogue as far as processes and procedures. >> do you have a good dialogue with the federal government now? >> we do. >> but we have some problems with the sharing? >> there's always going to be some friction. it's not necessarily a bad thing. we get the job done. we work with federal agencies every day. think agencies want to do good work. they're proud of the work they do. and sometimes it creates

tension. but tension is not always a bad thing. i think you want to see behind the curtain. i think we want transparency as far as what the federal government is doing. ed has an opinion on it. if, in fact, there are things going on in your city, then your mayor and your police chief or police commissioner should know about them from the federal government. there should be a regular exchange of information. >> i agree completely. >> but what commissioner kelly has done is expand more than most city police departments a counterterrorism unit of your own where you even do interviews say in new jersey famously enough. have you learned from that? and do you think you ought to expand your counterterrorism in boston so that you're doing things that normally is given to the fbi to do? >> as it relates to home grown violent extremists, yes. i think there are people in our community that we should be working with and sort of keeping

an eye on if they pose a threat. that's part of our responsibility to keep our citizens safe. however, we need to be i don't think there's any agencies in the country more transparent than the local police agency. we have "the boston globe" and "the boston herald" in our lobby every morning checking on what we did overnight. community groups are marching to the police station every time there's a problem. it's a very dynamic environment at the local level. the mayor from portland talks about cameras on their eyeglasses. when that happens, it will, i'll put the federal investigators back on the street. >> when that happens, will you allow people to be arrested

using google glass? >> that's an important part of this conversation. more of that information we're collecting right now is exculpatory. everybody is looking at this as they're going to use it to put me in prison. it's going to clear a lot of people. at what point in time if you want to pursue the goals of justice, what point in time do you stop that, what point in time do you get a license plate connection that might clear someone of a murder charge? this cuts both ways. people have to understand that. >> you wouldn't have problems if normal citizens videotaped police at all times in their action using google glass or phones? >> not at all. we have a court case on it in boston. i sent out a directive to my offices that if anybody videotapes you with public information, you can't do a thing about it. >> one other quick thing. one of our crown fellows of the institute created a shot spotter, is that right?

james bell vick, a friend of mine, how does that work? >> an acoustic collection device. we have microphones throughout the city listening for gunshots, and when they hear the report of the gunshot, they try hang later and give you a precise location as to where it happened. it's extremely effective. it saved lives and led to arrests. >> opening it up for questions. questions for the commissioners? i can't see well. but -- >> great. >> is the same true in new york about people who videotape? and is it exculpatory? do you encourage citizens to videotape your police in action?

>> we don't discourage them. we've had issues in the past. but clearly it's the public domain. and it can be done. we've had some issues with the shot spotter because i think the topography of new york city has the effect -- >> yeah. >> what new technology is the most effective coming down the pike that we don't know about. >> well, you know, the cameras are great. quite frankly. the first thing that police officers do when a crime is committed is to look and see if any camera is in the area as was said before in the previous panel, they have come way down in price. it can wait. so they're -- you know, they're virtually everywhere. every commercial establishment. >> can you monitor in realtime to prevent crimes that are about to happen? >> that's a very expensive do that, to have police officers. >> you need human eyes to do that or can you do it -- >> yes. >> with artificial intelligence? >> you can do some of that. we have some live monitoring going on in our public housing projects that's going on on a

limited basis. but generally speaking, the cameras are used for retrospective investigation or examination. >> yes. >> hi, my name is emma green. i'm from "the atlantic." commissioner kelly, how do you feel about the verdicts that came down on stop and frisk? and how do you think of the new york precinct going forward? >> i didn't hear the second part, but the first part is how do i feel about -- >> how do you feel about the verdict that came down on stop and frisk? and how will it change new york policing moving forward? >> disabled veteran.

i didn't hear exactly what the question is, but stop and frisk. it's first of all, stop and question. sometimes frisks in less than half of the cases is frisk. which is a limited pat down. i believe that this case -- the decision by joe shinnedling cries out for appeal. i think the findings and the indictment of the entire police department calls for indirect racial profiling is based on the flimsiest information. the experts had in this case looked at 4.4 million stops over a decade. the expert on the plaintiff side found that 6% of those may be unjustified. the judge himself looked at the took testimony from the plaintiffs in this case, i believe there were four plaintiffs, it involved 19 stops. she, herself, found that ten of the 19 stops were constitutional.

of the 19 stops were constitutional. the criteria that they use in my judgment and a lot of other people's judgment is totally unrealistic and involves census data in a particular area. taken to the natural conclusion, we would have to stop more women. we stop very few women because the law -- the codified law says you can stop someone in a public place who you have reasonable suspicion is about to commit, is committing, or has committed a crime. and the majority of those cases, of course, are males.

we have the most diversified police force in the world. we had police officers born in 106 countries, so it's kind of somewhat strange that we're found to be guilty of indirect racial profiling. our majority/minority in the police officer rank. so the 97% of the shooting victims in this city as are the perpetrators. the criteria that was used as i said the census data goes up against the one we believe should be used and we brought in the corporation to 2006. the most appropriate racial profiling is ongoing is that the descriptions given by the victims of the violent crime of the perpetrators of violent crime. government is left out of it. now, in that case, in those examples, 70% to 75% of the perpetrators of violent crimes are identified as being african- american. black. and our stops traditionally had been 53% african-american. so our stops obviously or certainly comport to the description of violent crime. now, what we're doing in the

city and i think this gentleman alluded to it, it's working here. if you compare the bloomberg years, the 11 years, the almost 12, the 11 full years of mayor bloomberg's tenure, you compare it to the 11 years previous. you have 12,000 murders prior to michael bloomberg taking office. 5,000 murders in the -- in the subsequent 11 years. so it's 7,363 fewer murders in this city over that period of time. and if history is any guide, the vast majority of those lives saved are young people of color, mostly young men of color. we think for a variety of reasons, this case cries out for appeal.

it may not be appealed because of the city's change in the administration. may or may not decide to go forward with the appeal. and i believe that would be a major mistake. >> yes. there. following up on that, i'm curious about your thoughts on that, i'm curious about your thoughts on the mandatory sentencing for violations, how it works, and the racial ramifications for that as well. >> a mandatory sentencing? >> in the gun violations and how that works in terms of racial issues? >> i don't like mandatory sentencing. i think that in very few instances should we have mandatory sentencing. i would leave it up to the discretion of the judges. and so much of the process of the judges. but not in favor of -- >> it is my understanding that here there are -- that the state of new york, if you are illegally possessing a gun that

illegally possessing a gun that there's a three-year mandatory sentence -- >> the application doesn't work. what happens is the people were led to plead guilty to possession, or some place in the process, there is a negotiation that takes place. so practically speaking, it's in my judgment not worked politically well. >> what do you think has been the most important effect here in new york? it's remarkable. >> i think a lot of things that we're doing. i can tell you one of the most recent programs that we put in the last year, year and a half, is something that we call crew cut. we did an analysis a year and a half ago, two years ago, and we determined about a 30% of our shootings were coming for what we called crews. these are gangs and a couple of crooks below. these are loosely affiliated. we have about 300 in the city.

we put in a program to take them on directly. we increased the size, we doubled the size of our gang division. we took advantage of the fact that these young people can't help themselves but brag on social media. and we put a social media component in each one of the gang units, put an attorney on each one of the gang units because we have five district attorneys in new york city. and it enables us to have liaison directly with each one of the district attorney's. we put a uniform component, uniformed police officers in each of our precincts that had a problem with crews, and they're there to disrupt and intersect in the acts of violence. one of the things that we're sensitive to is retaliation. so this has worked very well for us. and as was said before, last year, we had a record low year for murders and shootings. this year, we're running 25%

below that. i think the professor said that something -- he talked about the reduction in murders. but 23 years ago, we had 1 million fewer people living in the city. we had 2,245 murders in the 7.3 million population. now we have 8.4 million people, and we're running at a rate now that will bring us in at about 320 murders. >> let me get commissioner davis in. what are you doing that's most effective? >> we're following the same policies. the shootings are occurring among gang members. it brings us into neighborhoods of color when we do that. the aclu is looking at our

numbers just like they did in new york. the initial findings are that most of the stops we're making are when people are involved in criminal activity. they kept records and the people that we should be paying attention to. but i find it remarkable that in a city where ray kelly has been able to reduce the homicide rate by 86%, the conversation is allowed something else other than giving him the credit that he's due for what's happened here. 7,000 lives are saved over this period of time. i give him a lot of credit for that. >> yes. way back -- >> hi there. i'm sara goodyear. i'm with the "atlantic cities." and even as homicide have continued to fall in new york city, traffic, violence, continues to be a big issue here. 148 pedestrians killed by cars last year. there's a perception that a lot of drivers don't get prosecuted for criminal activity. do you think the nypd could do a better job of preventing traffic violence on the street? how can they do that? >> we can do a better job in

every area. we're down 6,000 police officers from where we were 13 years ago when this administration came in. we've done a variety of things. we worked closely with the commissioner. they're doing a great job. we have just significantly changed or reformed our investigation of the practices. we have the collision investigation squad which uses the state of the art technology. but we do have 8.4 million people here. we do have a daytime population that's over 10 million people. so you are going to have a lot of traffic and accidents. some people are saying that some police are not arresting a lot

of people for reckless driving, that kind of thing. you have to -- you have to observe the violation. many of the advocates, i assume, you're one of them, want us to make these determinations when we haven't seen -- we haven't observed the violation. it takes in depth investigations and examination, it takes witnesses. it is much more complex than you might think. >> yeah, technology and cameras, do they help? >> asking me? they do help. we have cameras in the patrol cars right now. certainly in the highway patrol cars. we use our technology to help our investigators go to the scene of the accident and doing the investigation more effectively and quickly. >> last question. >> police departments --

>> could you identify yourself? >> rick hull, deputy mayor, city of los angeles. police used to be the back water in many cases of the local government, typically less educated than folks in other departments. now you're far more sophisticated in many ways than most of the other departments. more sophisticated technology, training, web of interconnection between the police agencies of all levels. how in the budget battles and you're looking at the overall health of cities, how do you see beginning to balance what you do in fighting crime and in keeping cities safe with the other elements that are necessary for a healthy city that in turn supports the prosperity, support the revenue, and the quality of life that makes a city safe and

and attractive. >> start with that and repeat it. did you get all of that, okay, great? >> that's a great question. the mayor has made it clear that we'll work with other city departments. the strength of our success in boston, his designation was the urban mechanic for a great city. it's been based upon the fact that there is connectivity between all of the various branches of government. so i know that arresting people is not going lower the crime rate. we've arellsed fewer and fewer -- we've arrested fewer and fewer people every year for the last seven years. but i do know that working with the inspectional services department, with the alcohol beverage control department, the regulatory agencies in city government have a direct effect on crime and reduce crime hot spots immediately. so we've used that sort of wholistic approach for a long time in boston. me for the last seven years.

it's only through cooperation and coordination in the full direction of the mayor. the mayor plays ape nowhere -- plays an enormous role in making sure the people work together. when that happens, it can be extremely powerful. >> no more innovative mayor or leader in this country than michael bloomberg. he's done phenomenal things here. everything that goes forward in this city, certainly anything that is progressive in nature has to be public safety. it has to be a feeling that you can walk the streets safely and you don't have a fear of being shot in your neighborhood and he's made a commitment to that. i'm concerned about the priorities. yes, i am parochial. but public safety, the staffing of the police departments, and the support that's needed comes first. everything else falls into place after that, in my judgment. >> thank you all, before you leave, you're both leaving

office in the foreseeable future soon. where do you travel to go on vacation? >> i'm going back to italy. my wife made it clear we're going to make another trip there. but the truth of the matter is, i have an offer for a fellowship at harvard, i'll do a little teaching and looking at other opportunities. >> what will you teach? >> the institute of politicings. >> what subject? >> criminal justice and politics, i haven't gotten the course. i'll find out in november. so i'm looking forward to it, though. >> what are you going to teach? >> i'm going to be a greeter at walmart. >> all right. >> see you there. >> see you there. [ applause ] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this is 30 minutes, a panel

on battling obesity. >> deputy mayor for public health and human services for the city of new york. >> welcome. we only have 30 minutes, and it is a critical topic of worldwide and literally epidemic proportion. you already have the biographies of this terrific panel. for those of you watching this live stream or later, we welcome dr. hernandez, the director of the national institutes of health public health in mexico, mayor greg fisher of louisville, kentucky, and i am delighted, he was not on our program before, but we were able to get deputy mayor of public health and human services in the city of new york , and sadly dr. tom friedman, the director of agile, cannot be here because of the government shutdown. the very fact that i've to say something like that is prickly

so shocking. our topic is slimmer cities, promising strategies for fighting obesity. obesity is perhaps the leading public health threat today. the city and countryside alike and is spreading globally. is huge. obesity does not kill as directly and as insidiously as it does tobacco, but it does lead to many forms of cancer, arthritis, pulmonary diseases, and tell us other costly and debilitating problems. and it greatly diminishes the quality of life of those who suffer it. astonishingly high percentage of people who are obese or overweight, including populations, cultures, and cities where until recently obesity was not a serious problem. we have many people here from around the world, and in many

countries, obesity is viewed as a deadly american import. also an especially challenging problem because it is so multifaceted. co -- and we have a wonderful breakout on this yesterday -- as challenging as tobacco reduction and smoking obesity is former cop located some the other factors involved than simply smoking a cigarette or eating a particular item of food -- it's so more complicated. whether it is sidewalks, playgrounds, bicycle lanes, we have been hearing a lot about this at this conference -- parks, even things like physical education availability in schools, youth leagues, all of these things are a factor. the food environment is obviously also critical. the availability of fresh fruits deserts,ables, food

the presence of junk food or sugar-sweetened beverages, placement of these things on shelves, how they appear in schools, and around the children, marketing to , especially, social and cultural norms, and even businesses and the practices of that we are all used to affect this in some way. whether the default for meetings or conferences in our own ways of of work are jelly donuts or the kinds of fresh and healthy options that we have here. i want to commend our organizers for that. so why are all of these many factors making the problem a more collocated and vexing one? it also gives activists and mayors many more tools to use. what we're going to talk about today is what actually works and what lessons have been learned.

start withe to mexico, again, because we have some people around the world -- and this really is a global problem. for those of you who don't know, our neighboring country has a diabetes rate of almost 11%, which is higher than any other country in the oecd. just reported that close to 33% of mexicans are obese, which is the highest of any country in the world with more than 100 million people, and is not as when suddenly, mexico has the highest per capital -- and not quintin italy, mexico has the highest per capita rate of sugar sweetened drinks in the world. there seems to be some problem is that mexico will be the first country, as i understand it, and the americas to enact a soda tax. can you tell us about that and it's prospect? >> yes, we have been working with many administrations, trying to push soda back with the view that if we change the

environment, people would be able to make more adequate decisions regarding the choices of what they drink. -- you take the review of our tax reform, you can see that these taxes help public health research and all the work that has gone on nationally and internationally. this is a major issue because we have not had any taxes -- it was hard to pass. that whirling to health. to help.inked so how we were able to make this connection with sugary beverages and obesity, and then to the incidence of diabetes. we were able to show won't be savings in terms of health will stop >> do you think is likely -- of help.go >> do you think it is likely to

pass? >> the sugar beverage industry is very powerful -- >> was in the sunday fox -- w asn't vicente fox the president of coke before he was the president of mexico? >> [inaudible] >> what about the argument that we hear hear that taxing sugar beverage is a high burden on poor people, what is your response to that? people maked, when healthier choices, they win health. you are preventing diabetes, and this is something which is also concentrated in poor neighborhoods. at the end, we are hoping that these taxes will be collected to provide drinking quality water for a larger proportion of our population. if we connect those two, then that definitely will not be regressive. >> someone said not too long ago

that the incidence of diabetes is regressive, too. you make an interesting point about the availability of water. any and -- even in many places in this country, fresh drinking water is not as readily available for people, and it is especially a problem i think in the developing world were in many places able choose these sugar beverages because water is not safe to drink. that sounds like it is an important lever in mexico, just making water more available. >> right now, we do not have any problems of making water available. >> what are some of the other levels that have in -- levers that have been especially effective in mexico? a long-term --ve and mexico, we have focused our actions moving away from obesity responsibility.

are moving to change the environment. so we are changing the school environment, we are changing the environment in the streets. if you go now to mexico city, paths, streetske are closed. there are a lot of things that are pushing the city. on the other hand, we are also trying -- trying -- to make our neighborhoods more safe so that people can do more activities. we are focused mostly on the environment. we have also done some education changes to our school curriculum to promote nutrition in order to increase the likelihood that they take the right choices. we have not been very successful, for example, and labeling menus. a very effective way of changing the behavior, as you see here in new york, you arrive at a food chain and ucd cars and you can ine your decision, and

mexico, we have faced enormous resistance from industries, providing an informative label on the package. >> you learn from our labeling here, and we can learn about how you were able to actually tax the sugar beverages. >> this will be a positive meeting. >> let's move to louisville, if we can. a city where i read that six in 10 of metropolitan louisville are considered seriously overweight, and in a state that is ranked seventh in the nation for obesity, yet the "new york times" recently featured your city mayor in a story -- a city tries to slim down. it is a fascinating and inspiring story. can you tell us the essence of what the strategy is in your city to attack this problem? >> we know it to be dependent to be a healthy workforce and a

healthy city. three core values drive our cit y. even more, an compassionate city, and the third is how can we be an even healthier city, so what that is visible health, mental health, environmental health, at the same time, and underneath that health panel then we focus on issues like policy, access, activity, and nutrition, so we are talking but this everyday in terms of making bad for an in- line with people. we have the may yours healthy hometown movement -- the mayor's healthy hometown movement. we have large displays of physical activity that we have come at 10,000 people showing up on our waterfront park to cycle through downtown streets that had been closed. 500 people doing yoga in the park or tai chi or paddling in the ohio river. our focus is to get out, be active. you do not have to look like an athlete to start action.

that is the hardest step with people who are obese is to get them out of the shell is a ok, i'm going to start impacting my life. we try to encourage that in many ways. >> have you gotten such incredible community buy into these efforts you g>? it doesn't like you've been more successful than many other cities. wife when you have these large displays of people, people say well, if joe can do it, i can do that. you see that with people bringing their friends and well -- friends and relatives to these events. i think that is part of the display, and a lot of it is communication as well, and we talk about it a lot with nutrition as well. we have a very active local food movement in our city, which led us to asking the question -- how much local food do people want to consume? so we did the first demand to study for local food in the country, and we found that as consuille hians, we

me $2 billion of food a year in our city, and of that, $300 million is what we call local food or local nutritious food, and there is a demand for $800 million, which is our learning because we are trying to be an intermediary between the farmers and the consumers. interestingly enough study, we found that a lot of people feel like local food, farmers market, are kind of an upscale line of thing. but there is a demand for good, local, healthy fresh fruit. localant to help businesses, in this case farmers, and they see the product of a higher quality, fresher, more nutritious product. >> have you done anything with the independent school districts? how have you worked with the schools in this area? >> in a real positive way. they have made a commitment to component, the percentage of their menu, 10% right now. they have reduced the sugar and sodium components in their foods. we increased the number of kids

that are having breakfast at school so they start off with a good, healthy meal at the beginning of the day as well, a healththere are also policies team or we take a look at all the policies that we have in the city from a holistic view from transportation to education to agriculture and say how can we be a healthier city. >> thank you. mayor gives, new york has been incredibly ambitious in this area, it has caused some firestorms across the way is o -- along the to way, too. remembering how when we use to buy coca-cola, at my age, it was a 6.5 ounce bottle, you put the nickel and and 6.5 ounces. now they are available 64 ounces. even with that defeat, we may come back to that, the reduction of sugar drink consumption has gone down, new york as a model

so may things we talk about -- bicycles, parks, everything else. what do you think have been the most important levers that have made a difference here in new york? >> we are not done yet. we're waiting to hear whether or not our appeal will be accepted on the soda sized tax -- >> good luck. >> yes, thank you, everybody. i think with our strategy in the city, one of the unique things, and i hear it in both mexico and louisville, is that as a critical public health issue, for instance now obesity is about to suffer ask cancer as the lead is -- leading cause of preventable death in the city. it will be number one. and what the mayor who is this, as you've heard, what they challenge us to do is not just look at our public health agency but to get all the city agencies together, and so he asked me and my colleague, the deputy for

an obesity to head task force, and to think across all of the agencies what we can do, how to cut was a 26 point plan that focuses on reducing that food elements in the environment, increasing good ,tuff in the apartment increasing -- and the environment, increasing physical activity, and really a special focus on children. out of that came unlikely partners in some ways. who thought the department of environmental conservation would be a big player in our obesity task force? but guess what -- they have got a lot of water. not only bottled water but putting pop up water fountains around the city. you see them all the time in the parks and places where people are exercising. our schools -- we adopted nutrition guidelines for the city, and the schools were the first out of the gate. in fact, the schools have started to do this work before

the obesity task force and the nutrition guidelines were created, and so in hearing that's all the school meals are serves to nutrition standards, virtually every school has a salad bar and water jets so that kids can refill their cups with water. by reaching out all of the -- to all of the partners, we both were able to give a train for agencies to hook their car onto, and a great example of that at the department of design and conception, they were working on active design guidelines. what should a building look like in order to promote physical activity of folks who were in that building? open up stairways, create walking paths, encourage people to move during the day. the commissioner was like hallelujah, now i have somebody to carry my initiative along. in other cases, it was the permission giving that was

provided to agencies to scratch their head a little and say -- are there things that i can do? so our department for the aging, and in many ways working with folks like city planning and transportation, said we need to provide a safer path for elderly new yorkers to walk. so bringing those shoulders into the streets so that the narrow,ks are more changing the timing on the lights, and to think about safe walking passages. now, where do we stand with all of this? .e are a good ways and not everything about the ground yet, so many of these things are being implement it. our most recent data just cannot , adult obesity -- just came out. adult obesity just kicked in. i do not want to to see a ski slope with the ball rolling a gazillion miles an hour down the hill. maybe it will roll a little

ticked down, but it is five years in the road now with kids, and that is unique, that is bucking the trend nationally and internationally. that is very promising and there are glimmers of hope there. >> congratulations on that. just one general question and that we will open it up in a minute. at the you have all been vanguard of public health efforts. when you think of the arguments, first of all, you have also touched and use all these lovers that have nothing to do sometimes with regulation. but on regulation, when you think of the other major public health campaigns of the century, whether it is seatbelts 40, 50 years ago, smoking, the arguments that were used were about freedom. it is my freedom not to put on a seatbelt. it is my freedom to smoke. you hear the same things now -- it is my freedom to choose to eat as i do. and then these slippery slope arguments -- if you tell me i cannot drink out of a 60-ounce glass, you will next him yeah cannot eat chocolate or i have

to eat broccoli and my basic american freedom is at stake. overcame -- we overcame those issues with seatbelts and tobacco. do you think it is the same? we are fighting for your cause, maybe after the administration i will come down with a placard for you and do what you can to get the soda tax passed in mexico. that would really be a great compliment, and i am sure we would follow, but we need a first, and we were not successful here in new york. buspar, we have not prevailed on the size of the -- thus far, we have not prepared on the size of prevailed ont the size of the sugary drinks. you can provide information and persuade. we have spent a lot of time and effort on subway and bus platforms, very graphic depictions of the consequences of drinking too many sugary beverages.

public tried to raise awareness and counter all the advertisements in the environment that show how much happiness you can get from doing this. really the tobacco history is our lesson giver here. we know how incredibly powerful increasing taxes are two behaviors. helps,know information but it is not the most powerful r that you have, so more aggressive actions that we can take are really needed in the face of an epidemic that is burdentremendous social on individuals and on the cost as a whole as a society. >> if you look 10 years back, the progress has been huge. we are at the very beginning of this journey, and we find out that place matters. the data now is overwhelming. in a city like ours and was

every city, if you live in one part of town, your life expected the is 82 years old, if you live in another part of town, it is another. some will say hey, what is that all about? when you start drilling it down, you may find that obesity is one of the issues behind that. the next question is -- what causes obesity? what can i do about that? a lot of it is education and knowledge and it will be a strong movement as we get into more talk about health insurance. obviously there is a little conversation about that right now. and cost, we will turn it into a positive thing in the near term. is hard to see hand, but i will do my best. the woman over here. if you could just give us your name and a quick question, please. >> i'm from mexico city department of transportation. goesust wondering -- this isiously to mauricio --

there being worked on the relationship of the built environment and public health? it is a discussion that has been topped -- tapped on in many places, but not mexico city or latin america in general. bogotá is one of the few cities where i've heard that they have started to rank the relationship between the built environment and public health. i am just wondering if this is something that right now the national institute of public health is currently thinking as a means to start promoting, you know -- the biggest barrier for active lifestyles is the fact that our cities are not and too much, priority is given to the cars, so the biggest barrier for help the cities is the reallocation of the street space for healthy lifestyle. >> thank you. thatroblem in mexico is this knowledge is still within

the health sector in the sense that if we move from sector to link withen we can -- thesentation sector, transportation sector, social sector, and connect health with security. you might remember, we have been a major at their -- effort to recover our parks, but this is mostly an issue of security, the link between health, exercise, and recovering these parts was not made. --we need to move to that what was already mentioned, the health and policies and interconnect them. thatwe can get the metrics the built environment is a strong determinant. >> i would like to add something on this. this series has been focused on megacities to a certain degree. most of these are like ours. 1.5 million metro area, not real

dense, so you do not have as much public transportation, as much walking taking place in the city. so making cities like ours more walkable and likable is a major focus of all u.s. mayors right now. >> thank you. let me go over to this side right now. >> i'm from new york university. you talk a little bit about physical activity and food and sugary drinks. but the other piece of obesity might be thinking about alcohol. we have not done very much in the city at least about -- even basic information about how much -- what the calorie content is in alcohol, although we know the out haul consumption in the last 10 years went up pretty dramatically. might wondered if alcohol be a more scary industry to approach because you have a bunch of -- not only just the eyeball industry but you have hospitality. -- the alcohol industry but you have hospitality. >> who would like to take that?

>> part of the answer is you have got to pick your battles, and we looked at the issue of alcohol consumption. it is sort of beyond obesity. you're talking about substance abuse. st thing that pops to mind is not let's do something because of obesity because there are terrible social ills that come from it, but i will just in thinking about how to go about your sweetened beverages, know, how complicated do you want your message to be, what is the cleanest to pass, you know it will get litigated, so part of it is definitely weighing all the pros and cons and taking the battles. i cheer on the next administration here in new york to sort of finish the soda le and expanded and taken on. i agree with you. >> one quick question may be in the middle if there is one.

yes, right here, last question. >> ian robertson from toronto. as we know, cities are globally connected, we are increasing, so i wanted to ask a question about pandemic preparedness and what cities are doing and what the views are on how cities can be better prepared for that critical public health threats? pandemic preparation. >> that is on the side of the health sector, at least a type of preparation, and we work for a much with all the cities so they can develop their plans. we had a big lesson in mexico h1n1.a 21 -- with so all cities must be prepared. it is certainly an issue. we have seen in the last year 7n7, so cities must be

prepared. >> here in new york we have a wonderful surveillance system where we get real-time feeds from the health care delivery system around what doctors are seeing. in new york of h1n1 city, i so clearly remember when tom friedman called me on a friday afternoon, and he is like i have to shut down the pageant at the high school, and i was like what, you cannot do that, grandparents or not in from out that, grandparents are in from out-of-town. that turned out to be the epicenter start of the h1n1 virus. so do have that kind of surveillance and him -- surveillance system and to set up road calls for public safety and protocols around how to do

that, then using your office of emergency management, with those plans that are exercised, so that when the events actually happened, people not only have a plan to turn to but they have given it a couple dry runs. here everyone saw in new york, tomorrow morning, when you go through union station, we are a mass something exercise, and there will be bodies, but they are not really dead, they are just acting dead so that we can go through these exercises. >> thank you. i have to make a few logistical announcements, and then i am going to ask you all to thank our panel. first, the filter buses will be departing immediately after this session in front of the conrad on the north end avenue. and i remind you that previous registration is required for those, except if you did not register and would like to go on one, the 9/11 group will be meeting on the second floor lobby and walking over.

besk you finally to please back in this room 481 :00 p.m. start to hear from mayor aoomberg -- in his room for 1:00 p.m. start to hear from mayor bloomberg and the candidates. and we learned lessons from louisville and mexico, and with that, i would just like to thank this wonderful panel. the thank you. [applause] >> all week on c-span, we have

been bringing you encore presentations of "q&a" in prime time, and we wrap up our week tonight with richard baker, the co-author of a historical narrative titled "the american senate -- an insiders guide." here is a preview. >> today, the u.s. senate is in use as the most our full upper house of any legislative body in the world. what does that mean? >> it means that most legislative bodies have upper houses that are only rubberstamped. let's say france -- -- with britain was its its house of lords -- >> an even better example. they goes onto the upper house, the upper house kind of reviews a, and maybe data not like you, maybe they send it back to the lower house, in the lower house said well, we respect your opinion, but we are going to pass it again. then it becomes the law of the land. i think it is only the italian senate and the united states

senate for sure that have apt loot be till over the work of the lower body. absolute veto over the work of the lower body. 1780 7 -- major concern, you are going to the house elected by the same people who are eligible to vote for in a state legislative elections. those people can be a little impetuous in their decisions, so we need a cooling body to review and to stop and absolutely slowdown and ask as one senator said in the 19th century, the senate is the place of sober second thought. framers oft the because edition had in mind. >> all of that "q&a" conversation coming up at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. a look back at events in washington that led to the 16-a government shutdown.

we will bring you highlights from house to and congressional briefings as well as insight from "los angeles times." year in review tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. and an encore presentation of ladies" series of jacqueline kennedy. international fame and the tragedy of a grieving widow. thisis on "first ladies" evening at 9:00 eastern. it was just over a year ago that 20 euros adam lanza entered sandy hook elementary school in connecticut. this afternoon, connecticut state police plan to release thousands of pages of police document including texts, photos, and 911 calls. we hope to link report on her website, www.c-span.org, when it becomes available. up next, our year in review program looking at the debate over gun violence and gun control.

>> as 2013 began, the issue of gun violence was fresh on americans' minds. the newton shootings had just happened in connecticut. over the next hour, on "year in review," a debate on gun violence and gun policy and we will start with january 16, 2013. president obama lays out some of reaction to children of gun violence. he also talks about what his administration plans to do with the issue. >> i started getting a lot of letters from kids. four of them are here today. they are pretty representative of the messages that i got. these are some pretty smart letters from some pretty smart young people.

a third grader, you can go ahead and wave. that's you. she wrote -- i feel terrible for the parents who lost their children. i love my country and i want everyone to be happy and safe. grant, go ahead and wave, grant. grant said -- i think there should be some changes. we should learn from sandy hook. julia said -- i'm not scared for my safety. i'm scared for others. i have four brothers and sisters and i would not be able to bear the thought of losing any of them. these are our kids. this is what they are thinking about. when we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them.

and shield them from harm and give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything they are capable of doing not just to pursue their own dreams but to help build this country. this is our first task as a society -- keeping our children safe. this is how we will be judged. their voices should compel us to change. that is why last month i asked joe to lead the effort to come up with concrete steps we can take right now to keep our children safe, to help prevent mass shootings, to help prevent the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. we cannot put this off any longer. just last thursday as tv

networks were covering one of joe's meetings on this topic, news broke of another school shooting, this one in california. in the months since 20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us at sandy hook elementary, more than 900 of our fellow americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun. 900. in the past month. every day we wait, that number will keep growing. i'm putting forward a specific set of proposals based on the work of joe's task force. in the days ahead, i intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make it a reality. because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent

every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try it. and i am going to do my part. as soon as i'm finished speaking here, i will sign a directive giving law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals and the communities tools they need to reduce gun violence. we will make it easier to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by strengthening the background system.

we want them to hire more school resource officers if they want. we had knowledge that someone with a mental illness is far more likely to be a big them of -- a victim of violent rhyme than the perpetrator. i will direct the centers for disease control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce. congress should look into the effect of violent video games have. we don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence. these are a few of the 23 executive actions i'm announcing today, but as important as they are, they are in no way a substitute for inaction of

members of congress. to make a real and lasting difference, congress, too, must act. and congress must act soon. i'm calling on congress to pass some very specific proposals right away. first, it's time to require universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. [applause] the law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks. these gun sales are not safe, not smart, not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.

if you want to buy a gun, whether it's from a licensed dealer or private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or someone legally prohibited from buying one. an overwhelming majority agree with us on the need for universal background checks. congress should restore a ban on military style assault weapons and a 10 round limit for magazines. [applause] the type of assault rifle used in aurora, when paired with high-capacity magazines has one purpose t