march and the movement demanded a meeting with the mayor of nashville. right with am out camera rolling and a microphone in his face whether he personally thought that it was morally right to discriminate against something -- someone on the basis of their skin color. activistse of 5000 staring at him, he said the only thing any human being would say, which is that it is not right. that was the kind of moral pressure, the disruptive capacity of that movement with very personal grievances that led to that change. i answer to your question would be i do not know what would lead to a change in a country that you are talking about, but i know that it could not be exported or imported or built from the top-down. it would have to come from ordinary people expressing a common grievance around which they could unite. >> on behalf of the school and

the university of denver, it has been an extravagant privilege to be here. this has been truly a fascinating time. keep up the good work. even if you are not on that top 100 list next year, do not worry about it. keep going forward. you will be on other lists. thank you. [applause]

>> "washington journal" continues. host: two weeks from today will mark the final day to sign up for health insurance for 2014 under the affordable care act's exchanges that have been set up. here to talk about how the signup process is going is politico health care reporter kyle cheney. what's the latest we know on enrollment numbers here? guest: it's imprecise but the white house is touting 4.2 million signups. the number is sort of the rough number that we know. host: remind us what the enrollment targets are here. guest: there's been some dispute. i think initially the projections were that 7 million would sign up by the end of march. but then we had the collapse of

health care.gov so that was reduced to 6 million. the white house now says we just want millions to sign up. 6 million, 5 million, somewhere in that range is what they're shooting for. but no set number. host: and that 4.2 million that you talked about broken down by age groups, ages 18-25% represent about 10% of those, 26-34 years old represent about 45-5423 and %, above represent 30% of those who sign up. but it seems like the most important numbers at least from the obama administration's perspective is that 18-34 range. correct? guest: exactly and you noted 26% of the total signups so far in that range which is passable i think but to the administration's point of view. but i think they're hoping closer to 40% which would really suggest robust enrollment in that age group what they really need when you

have older and less healthier people signing up. host: and there's been a lot of discussion about what the numbers are needed to make the affordable care act work. this is a question that president obama was asked on friday in an interview he did with the website web mm d. here's a bit of what he had to say guest: at this point enough people are signing up that the affordable care act is going to work. the insurance companies will continue to offer these plans. we already have 4 million people, over 4 million people signed up. it will go -- it will be a larger number than that by the end of march 31, the deadline to get insurance this year. if you miss the deadline by the way on march 31, you can get insurance but you'll have to wait until november of next year or november of this year to start signing up again. the impact in terms of the

program has always been based more on the mix of people who sign up. do we have a mix of people who are gray haired like me, and may have some old basketball injuries and aches and pains along with young people who are healthy and don't really have any issues right now. do we have a good mix of gender in terms of men and women. host: president obama in his web md interview that was released on friday. one of several different appearances he's made to promote the affordable care act and this upcoming deadline. correct? guest: yes. he's been out there in full force as the deadline gets closer to march 31. you heard him talk about the mix of enrollees which i think you're hearing more and more seems to be the act warne chief there in terms of wanting enough young people again to sign up and when he talks about the mix that's what he means, young people versus older, men

versus women. that's the numbers the white house is focusing on rather than the overall 6 or 7 million these days. host: as we're talking about these enrollment deadlines that are coming up. we want to take your thoughts and questions our phones are open. democrats can call republicans can call. dependents and we have a special line set up for those ages 35 and younger who want to talk about the subject. president obama appealing to those folks 35 and younger crowd. he went on the website funny or e to talk with comedian zasm about the health care website. here's a bit from that appearance on funny or die. >> if they get that health insurance it can really make a

big difference and they've got until march 31 to sign up. >> i don't have a computer. >> well, then you can call 18003182596. >> i also don't have a phone. i don't want you people looking at my texts. >> first of all, nobody's interested. but second you can do it in person. the law means that inshurers can't discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. >> but what about this though? >> that's disgusting. >> how long have you had that? >> just four months. >> really? >> spider bite. i got attacked by spieders. >> you need to get that checked right away. you need to get on health care.gov because that's one of the most disgusting things i've ever seen. >> what's been the reaction to the president's appearance with comedian zack? >> well, the white house reminds everyone that became the leading driver of traffic

to health care.gov. so as far as they're concerned that was the best reaction they could have hoped for. some of the fire stomplee where you heard a lot of criticism this is beneath the office of the the president the white house countered we're going to reach young people as they always say where they are. the media they're watching is not all reading mainstream publicications any more, they're scattered. so the reaction's been across the board but i think in some sense that advance it is white house's goal because there was so much buzz around his appearance that it got a lot more traffic than otherwise. >> making one of the header columns this week, a picture of president obama's appearance and the headline is searching for the young invisibles. the economist magazine this week. we're here talking with kyle cheney of politico. we want to take your thoughts and comments. betty in chicago, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, america some of the people in america are really

petty. regardless of the rollout, every thing like that has a side good or bad. since october look how many millions of people that didn't have insurance in this country babies old people didn't have it. they're getting it now. why can't the republicans and people like you all move on and get off that enrollment? we've got people that are being signed up, people that are taken care of, can't you all come from the past and go to the future? also, the republicans keep talking about president obama going on that show. he reached 15 million people what's wrong with that? you get people where you can. this man is trying to get people in this country to have good health insurance. is there anything wrong with hat?

host: she was talking about some of the criticism that the obama administration has received on the website and its rollout. how is that -- has that continued today? guest: you don't hear much any more because health care.gov is almost completely functional. you hear scattered bits about people having problems. the criticism you're hearing from republicans now more is about costs, it's about is the law itself going to work or collapse on itself? to the caller's point, the administration and its allies keep emphasizing that look, millions of people regardless of its 6 million or 7 million, millions of people have coverage now many of which may not have before but we don't know how many were uninsured but we still know that millions of people have enrolled or signed up. so this is the white house's point. that's what matters here the long run this is proof that this is working. host: your story in politico, the headline, how many have paid premiums?

talk about the difference between paying for the premiums and enrolling? guest: this is why i mentioned earlier the 4.2 million is imprecise. that's people who go to health care.gov or state exchange or sign up for coverage. to actually be enrolled for an insurance company you have to pay your first freedomium. and the industry is very standard for a percentage of people who sign up not to actually pay and therefore never be covered. of course the goal of the affordable care act is to actually cover these people signing up. so when we talk to people in the industry you hear more like 80% of people signing up is actually paid and so the anrollment number may be somewhere south of 4.2 million, could be in the 3's which has some bearing on whether the administration is enrolling as many people as it hoped. host: have a special line set up in this segment for those 35 and younger. that line is on your screen. in the meantime we'll go to thomas waiting in west virginia

on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: it's actually kevin. no problem. host: go ahead. sorry about that. caller: that's quite all right. this segue's perfectly into my comment. because from october to now a percentage according to the numbers, people who would have normally gone for free health care relief anywhere because of the unemployment because of the economy, because of people losing jobs, it's built on a lie. 28 different speeches. you want your doctor you can keep -- the whole thing was constructed under a wicked, cruel man iptive lie to gain control of aff sixesth of the economy no matter how much ky it takes. it's a lie. host: talk about how that what the caller was talking about the statement that the president made if you like your health care you can keep it is going to play in the 2014 elections. guest: that's been coming back

to haunt him since around november when people or october when people started getting these cancellation notices that basically said their old health plan didn't meet the requirements therefore you have to select a new plan or you're out of luck. if you like your health care plan you can keep it line is a staple already at this point and it's not going anywhere any time soon. and there is actually some concern we might see another wave of cancellations right on the eve of the elections this year, although the administration has made some maneuvers to prevent that from happening. but that's going to be a potent line again it's a fixture of the special election campaign in florida last week, that was that played front and center an a republican won there. so that was a bell weather in some analyst's minds for what we might see. >> on twitter. guest: i think the closer we get you're going to hear more

of that. but the idea was always is that you don't want people to be able to sign up the second they get sick. there is there has to be a window where they have to make a decision and so the goal for the administration is to get the word out and educate people but you need that deadline for insurers in particular for this to work for their bottom line and make sure they're sustainable. they need people signing up for insurance for the possibility that they're going to get sick not when they actually are sick and picking and choosing. host: let's go to dan waiting on that line. he's in new hampshire this morning. dan, you're on the "washington journal." guest: calling in lee sponse to the woman from illinois who qualed. as to why it's just republicans that are bashing obama care and why young americans aren't signing up. i'm a young american and i'm an independent. and i live in new hampshire. and we're told that we are going to have all the choices

in the world and we're stuck with one inshurens company now. i live in a major city, and it has enormous hospitals, and i would not be able to go to that hospital. and that's for the majority of the major cities in new hampshire. which only have 1.4 million people in the whole state. so i mean, personally i'm not going to sign up. -- all the the part enrollee numbers coming out are skewed. they're not really enrollees. they're based on how many people selected a plan. so i think it's going to be a huge disappointment when it comes time to have these numbers actually come out the real numbers on how many people actually are enrolled and purchased a plan is going to be way lower than what everybody has been projecting and how many people have been enrolled.

host: when do we know that those numbers, that the caller is talking about, when are those numbers come out? guest: it may be months. there are still components that aren't built yet and the administration says they may not be built until the summer when we see that data. so it could be a few months at the least. although you can get a rough estimate around 80 to 85% of the people signing up are paying so you sort of ball park it. the caller is correct we don't know how many people have been enrolled at this point. host: another question on enrollments. guest: that's another one of the mysteries we would like to know. we have seen some surveys that suggest started out earlier at 10%, gone up to 25% of people who are again enrolled are new newly enrolled or newly insured. and again that's what strikes part of the heart of the law is to get people who were

uninsured into coverage. so knowing that number will be a big help but one of the mysteries we don't know yet. host: on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for take mig call. way stion is, with the the government has been with the health care, with obamacare started, we had a crash with the obamacare. and my question is, how can we avoid that from happening again? thank you. guest: talking about the website itself? when you're talking about that? caller: yes. the website itself. guest: and again, i mentioned earlier that the website is now for the most part up and running. i think one of the things that that laid bare was part of the problem with the way the federal government contracts with these massive it companies and hands out these massive

contracts and the president has spoken to this and says this speaks to the need for contracting reform and the way we select our vendors and the ability to be nimble and flexible when it comes to how we contract and with whom we contract. so i think for any other large undertaking like this, which again this is an undertaking probably larger than any the federal government has ever undertaken, you probably see some kind of reform on the it side in the way the government contracts. host: as we talk about this upcoming deadline we should probably note that there is a difference at what's happening at the end of the month and then signups for medicaid. correct? guest: exactly the march 31 deadline is the deadline for enrollment in exchanges which is the new market places available for people who are above depending on which state you live in above 133% of the poverty level. many are eligible for tax credits. that's the key component for the new law. for those people who don't have affordable coverage offered by their employers.

you signed up for medicaid but medicaid you can enroll in all year. host: a question on twitter. guest: and that was one of the things we heard especially in january when coverage first went live and there were gaps and the insurers hadn't been receiving information from the website and feeding incorrect information from the website. so that is definitely a fear i think the administration has made some maneuvers using regulations and urging insurers to be reasonable and treat each case with care and not deny someone important coverage that they need. and then they would sort it out later when they actually correct and reconcile the data. so the idea is that nobody would ever appear in the emergency room or somewhere or be told you're not covered. but again, it's been imperfect and we have heard aneck dotes where people have run into that problem. host: a special line this

morning set up for those 35 and younger. we'll go to that line now. pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i was just curious. do you think the president dreamed too big? guest: when it came to the affordable care act here? caller: yes. do you think he saw something that he wants it, he saw something that would be great for this nation. but it just wasn't in reach yet? he just dreamed too big. guest: host: how would you answer your own question? caller: i think that's what happened. the country's not ready for it. we have other thing that is we need to get handled. i mean, our foreign policy's gone to crap. i mean, to hear about it, to hear certain stories, it sounds like the greatest thing ever. yet i mean, have you looked at minimum wage and maybe raised

that? giving us the money and the ability to pay some of these premiums and so forth, would that have helped? guest: i think your point is an interesting one because a lot of democrats and his allies in particular say he didn't dream big enough on this law, i think on the left and among democrats the single pair system was always the ideal. which is something that doesn't really have a lot of political traction. but it would eliminate the whole notion of private insurance, which is -- can be very messy and complicated. and it is in part the push to preserve that private insurance system that again occasionally runs up against what democrats really would prefer, that has created some of the complexities of this and some of the problems that we've seen. so in some sense some people would say he tried to be too -- thread the needle too much to preserve the private system but advance health care to all.

and when you do that it creates such a thicket of rules and complicated processes, that that actually is the root of the issues that we've seen so far. rather than reaching too far. host: talk about some of the back and forth on the political side. there was another house vote that had to do with part of the affordable care act, a major part on friday. what was that? guest: the house vote on friday just remind me. there's a vote every week on elements. host: to delay. >> right. my mind is going because we have a different repeal vote every week. this one in particular again you mentioned the doc fix, a major change to the medicare physician formula the way they're paid. it's interesting because there's been a bipartisan push in health care you don't see that too often these days among democrats and republicanses in the house and senate to craft a solution to this decades old problem of the way medicare

doctors get paid. and it was cruising along and then republicans in the house and the senate actually decide it had way we're going to pay for this change is by delaying the individual mandate which again sort of guts big piece of the affordable care act. and democrats can't support that. it has no traction in the senate. so in a sense it derailed what was actually a bright spot of bipartisanship in the health care arena for the first time in a long time. and so it's unclear if that kills the doc fix for the year, which again is a huge goal in terms of a realigning the way medicare pays its physicians. host: what are the chance force this vote that happened in the house this week in the senate guest: they're nill. the senate won't entertain something that guts a major funding implement. they're back to square one.

the policy is still there if they can come up with a pay for it. but delaying the individual mandate will never pass. host: 20 minutes left talking about the looming deadlines for the affordable care act to sign up on those insurance exchanges with kyle cheney, a health care reporter of politico. we're taking your comments on twitter. ou can also e-mail us as well. kevin writes on our twitter page. et's go to diane in texas. caller: good morning. yesterday the president was saying that he has given the green light on the affordable care act. what i would like to know is how could anybody trust that man? he said admittedly on jay leno that he doesn't know math. he couldn't even help his daughter with math. how could he possibly fix an

economy and get jobs created when he doesn't know math? he's ill lit rat in it. he should come out right now and explain to us the truth about what's going on. tell us that -- host: can i ask you what's your health care situation and does any of the affordable care act has it affected you? guest: oh, yes. host: how so? caller: you could ask cast row here . host: how has it impacted you personally? caller: for 2-1/2 months all i did every day was go on the website. i called up the attorney general when it switched me over to expeerion. i went out of my mind. i -- a dope addict answered the phone. i couldn't believe it. and i called the attorney general. he had to call washington in the beginning to find out if we were supposed to call expeerion. there was no communications between washington and what was supposed to go on with the act.

but obama's good at talking talking rhetoric. but just give us solutions. host: talking about her experience in san antonio, texas. we'll go to david in maryland on our line for those who are 35 and younger. a republican. thanks for calling in this morning. caller: thank you. i just wanted to talk to the gentleman. i'm 31 years old and going to the aca. once you turn 30, you cannot have these quote/unquote catastrophic plans any more. i wanted to say the plan that i have currently with aetna, which they are currently going to leave the state of maryland, and i can't say it's because or not but my plan is 100% co-insurance with a 500 deductible. so the plans that are offered when the state, you know, the common ones are like a 6,000 deductible and would be 06%. even the platinum plans are only 90%. so essentially you could pay

more up to a high deductible and then pay part of a cost of the actual coverage once you use the plan which currently i wouldn't pay now, plus it doesn't include anything like dental or vision where mine now covers dental. it's just so ludicrous that these people once they use these plans will realize that the plans are absolute garbage compared to what quote/unquote is junk now. guest: you mentioned the idea about catastrophic plans which again the affordable care act allouse people under 30 as you mentioned to sign up for these certain really small-scale plans. but even some of those small-scale plans have new requirements in them about minimum standards of coverage. so if you were in a plan that didn't meet those that may not be available any more. because you're now over 30 you may not have access to the same kind of catastrophic level plan you described. although there are other

exemptions in the health care law that would make you eligible for the plan. and then as you mentioned, too, some of these bronds plans are actually pretty bare-bones coverage. they come with new protections and benefits that may not have been available before the law. but because of the law, because the bronze plans themselves were meant to be sparor than some of the higher tears of coverage you may find yourself with a higher deductible. host: on this st. patrick's day we'll go to irish ice. guest: partly has to do with if you're eligible for tax credits and subsidies from the government, they do a -- sort of a detailed financial check on you that includes through the i.r.s. and homents and other aspects of government where they can verify your records and insure that you

truly are eligible for a tax credit. that's part of the process they're using to verify the people who get those tax credits are expected or eligible for them. host: we're talking with kyle cheney, health care reporter with politico. have about 15 minutes or so left to discuss the looming deadline for the affordable care act. would love to hear your experiences. we have a special line set up for those age 35 and younger. the number is on your screen. let's go to david in minnesota on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is pretty simple. i'm a reasonably smart guy and i did the math. when i was working for corporate america i went back and looked it up. my monthly health charge through the company insurance was $460. i called in to the -- one of the affordable care lines and got an estimate. the amount of money that i

would have to pay -- and this is personally per month -- is $470 a month. so i'm looking at a yearly bill of $5,600. i am amonged the group of people who have lived a healthy lifestyle. i go out every other morning like clockworks a two-mile walk. i haven't had even a cold for 10 years. so i do myself more as being more in the 35 and under group instead of the 55-year-old where i'm at. all i want from health care is pretty simple. pay for the medications that i need right now. 90-day supply of what i need is $100. i want regular checkups. i don't need anything else at this point in my life. as far as emergency care, i

have the reagan health care reform from what was it 1998 that says no emergency room can turn me away. so at that point as opposed to the affordable care act, i am ctually saving myself over $3,000 a year. and if you add in the $700 fine per year from the i.r.s. for not signing up for it, well, then it, it is still close to $3000 a year i am saving. host: your thoughts. sure -- the $700 fine. i think it varies depending on income. the first year, $95 or one percent of your income if you are supposed to get coverage and you don't. i wasn't clear from the caller if he has an employer-sponsored health land, and if the cost of

that went up and if that was done by the employer may get a response to some changes. the callerre where would fit in in terms of having prices on theo exchange or tax credit availability and all of that. you do hear situations where people see their bills go up and immediately linked it to the affordable care act and if it is -- and if it is not clear whether the employer made. but the affordable care act becomes -- i don't want to say scapegoat that the cause of concern about seeing premiums rise. host: little rock, arkansas. caller: i am an underwriter. i went through several of the aca classes here in arkansas. thecan tell by the way whole organization for this is put together that they did not bring in anybody who was an expert in any field of creating policies, such things, in the

beginning. this think could not have been put together worse from word go. in the united states, insurance has been a regional animal because people make different incomes, have different health. to $6,000,table which is what most cannot afford but if you live in new york or isifornia, $6,000 adaptable probably what you will pay. you live in texas, kentucky, --n south like that, you may not be able to get the money together. as far as people enroll now, we know at least 4 million, as many as 7 million people's insurance was canceled but normally would not so of the people who signed up, we don't know how many are replacement policies. and all the people they put on medicaid, the reason these emergency rooms are even more full is because most doctors will not take medicaid. as far as the whole thing put together, the people thought the little too much about themselves about they could put something

together without bringing expert in on it. guest: an argument you hear a lot from critics of the affordable care act, which is the law itself, they basically call it a one-size-fits-all solution where you later these very complicated policies on a nation that is extremely complex. where again, you have states like new york and california that are extremely different than states in the midwest in terms of the cost of living and the expected cost of health care. so when you later these national policies on top of the existing systems in those states and each state retains some form of autonomy over the insurance market, it can be very complicated and you can end up with a lot of states where they are resisting precisely because the affordable care act does not work on their state. host: you talk about critics of the affordable care act. some sit on the republican side of the aisle. on the house ways and means committee, that is where health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius found herself

earlier this week answering questions from congressman kevin brady, republican congressman. here is a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> madam secretary, when you were a for the committee april of last year you ensured there would be no more delays of the affordable care act. we have had eight delays since those assurances which brings the total of 35. for families at home, what other delays can they expect? are you going to delay the mandate that individuals have to buy government approved health care or pay a tax? >> no, sir. >> are you going to delay the open enrollment beyond march 31 question for >> no, sir. >> is it correct that you don't have the authority to extend that deadline? position the centers for medicare and medicaid made, do you agree with that? >> i have not seen their statement, sir, but there is no delay beyond march 31.

kyle cheney, how much concern is there that there will be further delays? said: the line of delays the narrative that the bill was not ready for crime -- prime time. they delayed pieces of the periodically. we are not getting a piece -- any signals that any core components of the law will be delayed, whether before the enrollment deadline or march 31 and no signal at all they will extend the deadline am a perhaps maybe for people who had last-minute glitches. i don't think you will see the sort of delays we have seen to this point, which is the big one being the delay of larger employers providing coverage and escaping penalties if they don't. number we have seen a today and republicans underscore that as we get closer to election season, the more they talk about delays and the more it emphasizes that parts of the law were not ready to go live when they were supposed to be. host: a special line for those

35 or younger. washington,re in dc. good morning. go ahead. i am about to turn 25 in april and i got a job. i moved down from new hampshire, like one of your previous callers. i decided to stay on my parents insurance. i was not making enough money -- i guess i am making not enough money to get a subsidy -- i guess i am making enough money not to get a subsidy. i want to the website. i was totally refused to my dad talked me into staying on his insurance for another year because it was such a disaster area. host: and experience you have heard other people have? guest: one of the bright spots for the white house is the estimate around 3 million young adults stay on their parents' plans, and people who may not have that coverage of the wise and individual market or the jobs. when you hear white house

talking about millions and rolled, they include a 3 million adults who are able to have covered to not because they stayed on the parents plan. through 26. peoplenot heard about transitioning away once they hit the 26th birthday and have to , those people as they have to -- they have to relearn experiencing the marketplace. host: keith from evansville, indiana. good morning. colorcode good morning, gentlemen. yes, my comment is -- caller: good morning, gentlemen. yes, my comment is my feeling is that everything is being implemented all at one time. the health care, the immigration policy, the stopping of building , the scandal and

all of that. it seems like all of this is one big conspiracy to break our country. to pile on so much stuff that there is no way we are going to get out from under it. my son works at a cemetery. he's got a children. and he was promised a job, a full-time job. now since this health care -- this health care thing is coming, he works 29 hours a week and he has to take care of eight kids. he works as but off digging graves all and freezing, 18 degrees below zero, he's got to be there and do his job. help,he is not there to it puts all the work off of my wife. isust feel that all of this one big bill to break our country. this is just a feeling i have at this moment. i voted for president obama. is calling everybody a liar -- liar. all he has to do is call me and i can prove to him my son cannot

have his job because of health care. about theerns health-care law cutting back on hours that people can work. guest: absolutely. that is one of the lines you will hear a lot more of year. republicans, in the many hopes to gut the law, actually focused of america,timing saying the law actually encourages companies to employ people fewer than 30 hours ago is that is the threshold that employers need to provide full coverage. aboutave been talking pushing it up to 40 hours and even some democrats are sympathetic to that. although the administration argues there is no data that suggests employers are making that shift toward part-time. on ouroyce is in texas line for republicans. good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning.

i am calling because my husband and i fall into a group -- we are self-employed. fluctuates from month to month, week to week. see abouted to insurance, because we never had insurance. but because we don't qualify for subsidies because sometimes we make more money and someone -- months we make less money, the insurance agent said that if we went above a certain amount, that we would have to repay any subsidies that we have qualify for before. so even looking at the bronze plan, the premium would have been $850 a month and then a $6,000 deductible per person. $850 is equal to my house payment. up.our income is not going

i just wondered if there is anything that could be done for --ple who are self-employed we kind of seems to be left out of the equation. guest: at is true. the self-employed do not always fit into a neat box limit comes to health policy. one of the things you talk about that is a real field is real fear that we will hear more of is the notion of reconciliation. receive aes if people tax credit and income during the year was higher than expected, they are actually required to pay back the amount that they shouldn't have received had they predicted the income accurately. when you talk about fluctuating income and whether you may be above or below a certain line for a tax credit, that is something we will hear a lot more about later in the year and it will impact the war self-employed. on the other side of the coin, you will hear from supporters of the law that people have more

freedom to pursue their own business ventures and be self-employed because they are not locked into certain jobs where they are totally dependent on that job for their health care. so on the flip side, there are some aspects of the law that could free people up to pursue their own employment, their own business ideas, but then again, you are going to hear complications in terms of things like how do you receive subsidies. host: we talked about the tax penalty. another question from twitter -- is it true the tax penalty can only be elected from tax refunds refundyou go -- get no and do not buy insurance, how will the tax be collected? guest: it is correct. it is meant, when you file your taxes during tax season, the irs certifies whether or not you had health care during all the months you were required to have health care. essentially, if you had health for anything less than nine months of a year you are subject to a penalty and it varies based on your income. it is deducted from your return. i heard theories -- although i

am not 100% -- not 100th uninsured -- if you did not receive return they have no mechanism of cannot -- of collecting it from you. host: kyle cheney from politico, health care reporter. he also covered previously when he worked at the statehouse news service in boston. guest: that correct. health care is a pretty big deal and everybody thinks of massachusetts a precursor to obamacare. host: a couple of callers waiting for you. ham, north in dur carolina. caller: good morning. i wonder what health care would look like if democrats, republicans, independents, and americans all worked together. looking at some kind of alzheimer's disease.

president obama, when he tried to pass health care, he had so much opposition, it would not have passed. theried to push single-payer system, and every republican went against that. g inthey are still callin this, talking about the problems. but i wonder if we all worked together as americans what health care would look like question mark -- would look like? people a few years ago what it might look like if everyone worked together, you might have people describing the system like the one we have, at least if you talk to supporters of this law. they will say this is built on republican free-market ideas where you actually boost private sector insurance and preserved the system as opposed to what the democrats want, which is the single-payer system which would

have totally scrapped everything that is there and disrupted -- been a lot more disruptive than even the admittedly disruptive system that is in place today. it will be interesting to see what it would be like in that sort of hypothetical world with everyone working together. but it may not be so far off from what we looking at today. host: concorde, new hampshire. the line for independents. you will be the last caller for the segment. caller: good morning. this personal call from new hampshire earlier and talked about only one option, one insurance company. i've done research in this because i just have the time to and everybody says this is a federal takeover of health care, but what they forget is there are 50 insurance commissioners. i am happy kyl worked in issachusetts, because when worked in massachusetts and lived in new hampshire i had to get insurance under romneycare. the only problem was he was no good in new hampshire. i actually had to have two

health insurance is, one when i was home and adding to my home state and one when i was at work. i insurance new hampshire would not cover me in math and my math insurance will not cover me in new hampshire. say thaterybody to obamacare made all these changes, better start looking at your own state insurance commission. host: kyle cheney, in the last minute. guest: new hampshire is such an interesting situation, as the previous caller mentioned. you have one insurer in the exchange, mississippi has two. you hear a lot of situations where people are not thrilled with the options that are out there. there really aren't options. you are hearing republican starting to put together an alternative proposal to obamacare i wanted the features is the ability for insurers to sell policies across state lines -- one of the features is the ability for insurers to sell policies from across state lines. in a mess -- it is a messy

situation where each state gets to control its own insurance market and you later obamacare on top of that and he creates these complexities and conflicts with state and federal law. host: that alternative proposal from republicans making news just this weekend as well. jacob exactly. "washington post" had a story about the principles they are outlined. they are familiar principles but they are at least 30 to but

concerning the release of the fourth batch of prisoners. we hope that they will be released by the 29th of march.

mr. president, i am aware that you have several international concerns in various places around the world and we know you are dedicating your time and efforts for peace. we count on these efforts and we depend on them because we consider this to be a historic opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> israeli-palestinian

negotiations. live coverage from the wilson 8:30 eastern. later, debbie wasserman schultz talks about midterm elections. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. also on c-span 3. c-span, from stanford law school, a conversation about data collection, security, and privacy. journal," aon conversation about the investigations into gm's recall.

>> i have concluded -- i was on the floor, sir. sides andd to both the only gentleman who even made a move was mr. walker. the gentleman did not stand, the gentleman did not rise. had anybody been standing, i would have recognized them. >> i did not mean to suggest that you are not asking with fairness at all. said.t is not what you it was normal procedure of this house. i would never do it thing like that.

there wasn't a man on either side of the aisle who stood. >> i did not mean to offend you. >> you have offended me. i will accept your apology. >> more highlights from 35 years of house coverage on facebook page. brought to you today as a public service. now, a conversation on privacy and security concerns resulting from data collection by the government in the private sector. we will hear from a homeland security department official. stanford law school hosted the event.

>> we want to give you one reminder. this is being taped for c-span. that explains the lights. if you want to interject, we will try to get a microphone to you to help facilitate a recording. keep in mind because of that you may want to think twice about what you're saying before you say it. [laughter] we are delighted to have a great panel. i is here in california. i'm a technology lawyer. i'm a certified privacy professional. that is enough about myself. we are joined from new jersey. he has a pretty interesting blog he has on his website. i will let him introduce himself and little more properly.

to my immediate left is the department of justice here in california and the head of the policy in training for privacy issues. she knows more about why this he and policy issues than i can possibly ever get into my school. -- skull. to her left is michelle. she is the chief privacy officer of activity. -- macafee. there also certified privacy professionals. she is one of the authors of this ran new book it came out this week that i ensure she will plug at some point. getting from policy to code to value. available from your nearest amazon.com website. to her left is my partner and

colleague. he is a litigator with our firm. he has been doing litigation. he has done everything from the data breaches to sony cases and others. i learned how to do some of the things i do a daily basis when i was a young associate. each of you will start out with five minutes of discussion to set the stage and to explain their perspective a little more. i'm going to shut up. i'm going to ask them to take it away. >> great. thank you. i am sorry i cannot be with you there in person. let me give a very brief introduction to give you some

context on what i will be talking about. i am a professor of princeton in computer science and in the woodrow wilson school which are public policy school. i'm a computer scientist by training. i have done work on privacy from a technology side and a policy side. obviously, recent events have drawn a lot more attention to issues of privacy and big data. we hear about data breaches, leaks of data from corporate data centers. we hear about leaks of data from apps and other kinds of technologies that we use. we're hearing a lot about collection and use of data by government. we are realizing increasingly that we leave a very big and diverse trail of data behind us.

as we move through the virtual and physical world as well. it is no longer the case that the kind of pervasive data trail in information collection that we are used to in the digital world is only in the digital world. now the digital world in the real world are fused. we leave these records behind us. this consists partly of data that we provide willingly to people. it may be information about a particular information that you provide to someone. the data that we provide is sometimes available for collection or capture on a device we own, say data you enter on your phone or computer, data you send via e-mail. it is sometimes available for collection or capture at our own phone or computer.

it typically traverses across the internet to some kind of server affiliated with the service that we are using or that is somehow enacted to our activity. the data is then typically at rest at the service of potentially available there were use or to be captured. in transit, the data is also often available to be captured there. we rarely see it protected. there is a lot of data that is collected about our behavior and activities. almost anytime time that you read something online the information is collected about the fact that you read that particular piece of content, what ever it is. information about what we drive and what we do in the physical word is often available for

capture. what does this have to do with big data? why does it matter that this collection of data is big? what is really important is that data allows inferences to be made so that when a piece is provided it reveals not only what is written on the face of the data but it also reveals everything that can be inferred from it. if we are going to understand the privacy implication of data to be revealed, we need to think carefully about this issue of inference. the problem is that it is the the problem is that it is the notoriously difficult to model or understand or predict.

even experts have a lot of trouble understanding what implications of policing that information might be. this can enable more inferences. a kind of chain reaction. whatever the reasons why it is difficult to understand and model and makes it difficult to protect ourselves is that it is difficult to think about the chains of inference that we can set off by revealing one more not very sensitive fact. we have often talked about government collection of information versus corporate collection. one of the things we have learned in recent months is that governments and corporate connection are really connected more tightly than we thought. it is increasingly clear that government often follows a strategy of piggybacking on top of corporate collection of waiting for a company to collect data and then going to get it or using captured information off of a network where a company is conveying that data.

from your computer to their server. if it is about what you are doing or where you are or who you are, it is susceptible to being captured. finally, probably the biggest thing we have learnt from the government -- the revelation lately is that when we talk about big data, big is bigger than we talked. there are datasets being analyzed by governments to go beyond what many of us expected was going on. this sharpens the issue for us as well. let me pass it off to my fellow panel. thinks. -- thanks. >> thank you. >> good evening. very happy to be here.

my training is a medievalist. i was connect it is that privacy is a byzantine world. i've been working in privacy since 2000 when i headed up the former office of privacy protection in california which was a small state office treated by the legislature. it was originally part of the department of consumer affairs. it was a consumer education and advocacy organization. it did not have any regulatory authority. from its first operations it was part of the beginning of a real flourishing of consumer privacy legislation passed in california which continues in this day even as we speak. california has been acclaimed in some circles as the leading states in consumer privacy protection.

and some other circles they describe it differently. we have a lot of privacy statutes. we also have a constitutional right to privacy. it is not just the right to pursue what to obtain privacy, security, and happiness. i hope we're getting our full share. the office of privacy protection ceased to exist, was eliminated at the end of 2012. not coincidentally, the attorney general at the time created a new privacy unit. to which i moved along with some my former staff. it represented a real advancement and privacy protection by government in california. it added to the same kind of work that was done of education and policy advocacy in the old

office and added accountability and enforcement. in addition to educational activities, we also enforce privacy laws both state and federal laws that allow attorney general enforcement. it is particularly significant that this level of resources is dedicated to privacy protection eye the attorney general general's office. most of our privacy statutes in california are left to the attorney general and district attorneys to enforce. most of them do not have a private right of action. they depend on the law. due to an initiative that allowed individuals to use it only if they can demonstrate monetary or property damages which is often difficult to do in describing a privacy harm.

that leaves it to enforcement by das and ag's. we are interested in enforcing many of our new and older privacy laws. in looking at bringing about compliance with fair information practice principles with good privacy practices and respectful policies, we use more tools than just enforcement. there is encouraging businesses to practice to a higher standard. educate consumers and empower them with not only information about their rights but also with information and strategies that can help them to protect their privacy even when they do not have legal rights which is often

the case. finally enforcement. enforcement can be very educational. it can develop enforcement policy. we are looking at practices that we wish to raise to people's attention and point out the wrong way to do things and suggested better ways to do things. i guess he will talk about defining big data. here's my definition. it whole lot of data. enough data about an individual that even if no one of the points is personally identified, the accumulation of them makes the whole stream potentially

identifiable. our basic legal structures for providing consumers or individuals with controls over the information depends on notice and consent and deals with restricting it in certain ways. this is not necessarily personally identified. the whole structure does not work well. that is where we are with big data. but from big data and privacy protection in general i am interested in regulatory innovation. so many things are changing so fast that affects our personal information. not just things like big data but new business practices that the laws really cannot keep up. there are things we can do to

keep refreshing them iran or standing them. it is hard for them to keep up. there are proposals being discussed for alternatives to command and control laws and regs. before i pass it to the shameless promoter of her book, i was very disappointed at eight and marketingical failure on the part of amazon who i understood was going to anticipate what i would want to order in advance. they should have gotten it to me in advance. i actually had to order it. >> there was no drone? i am hoping for a drone strike filled with privacy manifestoes. thank you for coming. there are so many friends in the audience. i am excited to be here. i am the chief privacy officer

at mcafee. anything i say can be attributed to be grey. [laughter] i started out as a young lawyer at a great law firm. i started out an intellectual property law you're looking at the data. specifically a patent litigator. one of my first big cases was in the realm of the aids cocktail drugs in the pharmaceutical hunt for ownership over molecules. the molecule that actually works in that instance was because it had a version of if you hold up your hands but they are not identical, it turns out that one was effective and one was not. it was new and not obvious.

that was the case. that is interesting when it comes to datasets. things that everyone knows sometimes can result in analytics that create absolutely fundamentally new advances. it became a path where we could go after disease and malady with no therapies available at that time. here we are talking about big data all these years. i wasn't going to shamelessly plug but now i will. i wrote this book with jones and -- jonathan fox who some of you may know and love. i think big data is the ultimate in getting together artistry, chemistry, law, policy, consumerization of policy.

i'm going to read you a couple of paragraphs that shaped my thinking in this area. the world is certainly flat. everyone said so. the government said so. the church said so. your wise old aunt said so. everyone except for a few explorers, scientists and artists who looked at the sky and noticed the ground and the sky always but for brief tips before the observer wandered closer. it seemed to suggest that there might be something more than dragons be on the edge of the world. the world was not flat. there was an endless set of new possibilities to discover. privacy is certainly death. everyone said so.

rich people with big boats that sold such to the cia. you know who you are. founders of hardware companies. he knows who he is. someone who blogged said so. the government cannot make up its mind. it might say so. somebody tweeted it. everyone said privacy was dead. except a few explorers, inventors, children, parents and government regulators who looked at an endless sea of data and still could see how a person can be distinguished from a pile of metadata. this is true for people who wish to decide for themselves the story they wish to tell about themselves and to whom. these people see a different horizon.

the privacy engineer sees this when they combined to create value. this is how we start out the book. i will not shamelessly plug it tonight but it really is the culmination of 15 years of thinking in partnership with security architects, our forward is written by an artificial intelligence analytic ceo. to thing there are more and more identifiable moments that are happening out there. there was a hearing here. we have all the elements for doing something that could be enriching. and human-serving. that is my bigot we are the world policy statement. -- big we are the world policy statement.

>> i have been a litigator in boston since 1985. i am intrigued we're going to work on even defining the data. in boston we call it large data. [laughter] the intellectual property connection is part of this for me. jim and i years ago started a trade secret case with who invented the pump sneaker. there is a trade secret law that carries through to this context

for me. it is a very fundamental role. in order to assert rights you have to keep it secret. if you do not keep it secret it is gone. your rights go with it. just like data. once your data is out there, it is gone. trying to reel back rights is part of what everybody here is talking about, whether that is even possible. i have been working on data breach and data security cases ever since the tgx case seven years ago. that really started a lot of attention in this area. at the time it was the largest cyber attack of its kind. it stay that way until the payment system case came around in 2009. we had the good fortune to work on that case. this includes the criminal intrusions at sony a couple of years ago.

a motion to discuss this that followed was granted yesterday. we work for window where my colleague is challenging the authority and the areas that are claimed by these the. -- by visa. and by the ftc. there are the efforts to claim the ability to enforce reasonable security standards in the hotel franchise context. it is a very interesting time to be here and talk about some of the things that are in the news and that are defended in the news in the last few years.

my general perspective is that i do look at this as big data issues from the perspective of someone in the trenches as a litigator dealing with the cyberattacks against bodies of company data, aggregations of company data. we get called in. it is at a moment where companies are faced with challenges of dealing with the reality of finding out what has happened, what exact data is an issue. there are regulatory inquiries, it class action complaints, towns or party complaint and obligations. there is extreme pressure to act very quickly and to do it right.

it is very challenging and interesting task that we have gone through a number of times. my introductory comments on this is that in the litigation context, which where i live analysis all starts in ends with injury. if any information about an individual is taken or exposed or lost, of course we will say "what is the injury?" the recent clapper decisions involving a challenge to pfizer provisions and surveillance came at this in march of this year. the supreme court makes clear

that in the federal courts we're not talking about a risk of injury. we are not talking about the possibility of misuse. not even an objectively reasonable expectation of misuse. to get into federal court you need actual injury or injuries that is pending. just to satisfy article three to get your foot in the door. even if you can satisfy that standard, you still need to have enough of an impact, enough of a recognizable injury to me the elements of a cause of action that you are trying to assert, whether it is negligence or breach of contract or a level of injury that might be necessary in the statute.

the fact that you are presenting to the court does not include a situation where it will intervene. courts will not engineer the situation for you with a remedy unless you have this. this is what litigation is. companies know how to deal with that. the facts all revolve around whether there is real injury. a neutral judge decides what the standards are. companies can work with that. the other main actors in the space are regulators. they are usually operating under statute prescribing unfair statutes and practices.

there are more specific statutes. they talk about privacy data security issues with different language. it is different. they talk about reasonable security. this is something we can discuss as well. in that context, where you are talking about the practices, the injury discussion often seems different. in a dissection case you talk about mercuriality instead of injury. many of the cases you talk about doing this talk about out-of-pocket loss. you sometimes hear concerned not about what happened but about what might happen. as professor felten earlier said, as we do with big data inferences are things that are

difficult to model and project. that is what you hear people expressing concern about. you hear a discussion and use of words like inconvenience in distress, unpredictability. creepiness. worry. potentially warranting any for possible action. that would not be enough for a court. there are almost no judicial decisions in the regulatory context validating or aggressing the difference in approach as it is applied by regulators. if you do not have a body of case law were courts have weighed in and adjudicated determinations under that

rubric, not in the same way as you do in courts, obviously. at least in the data security context. i think that lack of judicial authority, the difference is look in at the approach of what you see being discussed and sometimes motivating and being implemented in the regulatory sphere. it is part of the difficulty that they data faces. -- big data faces. predictability is important for any business. these companies are growing hand over fist. what are the rules? what are the risks? what can we do with this data? how responsible will i be if they preach occurs?

-- a breach occurs? it is less clear in the revelatory areas than it is in -- regulatory areas than it is in the traditional area. >> thank you. perhaps we should pick up from that being. you all test upon a harm piece of it. harm piece ofn a it. one of the things that seems to drive a lot of our thinking that what is the harm of data analysis and collection and analytics and putting it to use in some way. you did mention the inferences as well as the shrugging that occurred after it was revealed that it was collecting only 30% of phone traffic.

does society think there is no harm in this? what are the potential harms that you are concerned about as he think about regulating? they leave it to either view to take it from a regulatory perspective. >> let me talk some about this from a technology standpoint. as i said before it can be difficult to understand and figure out how data might be used. it is difficult to tell if it is being used in ways that are adverse to your interest. if information about a person's life is published in a way that they do not want published.

they may not know about the job offer that comes about the invitation to something that does not, whatever it is. people tend to think about this in terms of risk. risk is really the rational way to think about a situation in which causality is believed to exist but it is difficult to tell the exact mechanism or way in which a negative consequence can manifest itself. this is a reasonable way to think in terms of risk. think in terms of a body of data being collected, the maintained, being used as a risk. being like an oil in an underground oil tank. it is almost like an environmental risk. there are a lot of things you can do to inspect it to make it is safe, to replace it

periodically so you minimize the risk that the oil will end up leaking in the ground. you can never make that risk zero. if you want to minimize the risk, the best way to do it is to not have an oil tank in the first place. that does not mean you should not have oil tanks ever. it means you need to think in terms of risk and disclosure. that is the way many people think about these issues. i think it makes a lot of sense. >> i would like to step back from the regulatory position to sort of a policy philosophy perspective. when we are talking about protecting from harm, what are we trying to protect? it is not merely a matter of

protecting individuals from harm of them by the abuse or use that they did not want of their information. there are also societal dimensions to privacy, respect for individual privacy or lack of it. it has an impact on society as a whole. for a healthy functioning society we need to be a time in his individuals with a certain amount of respect for our dignity and our economy so that we can operate freely. we can deliver eight. -- deliberate. we can be innovative to academic freedom. there are harms to society as a whole from the massive collection from individuals that amounts to pervasive surveillance. that affects how we live and

develop and how we operate as a society. i think we can run ourselves down the wrong path way if we define what we are rechecked teeing as simply protecting an individual from harm. that is one of the things we need to bear in mind. there are societal values and benefits to respect privacy. what is the harm to individuals? i'm not speaking as a regulator. i do not think our courts necessarily has come to recognize privacy harms that many of us would proceed. -- perceive. there is a very interesting study from george washington

university. he has categorized harm and things like surveillance and collection. like disclosure. the distinction between information that is public about me such as stuff published in phone books or in public records that is left in a record or book someplace compared to the same information being posted on the world wide web. now it is exposed to more people. it is searchable. it is a different degree of exposure. i cannot tell you how often they can call. they discover the information.

it is not like their medical information. they are sure that there is a law. that cannot be there without their permission put there by somebody they have no relationship with exposed to all the world. i do not have the legal answers to how we can start to expand our definition of harm. but i think we should -- both on the impact on individuals and society. >> just to follow up on that, don't we have laws already that help protect us from some of the things? i think the fair credit treat reporting-- credit act -- it goes directly to some of these data collection issues. when you think about these data issues being used for various purposes. >> we do have laws that speak to some very specific types of harm. not some of the others that have

a real impact on our lives and our society. >> i think that is an important point. we are talking very provincially right now. this is only the u.s. view. if you are a practitioner, if you have dot com after your name your walking onto a global stage. it is a very different global stage. harm outside of the u.s. borders is based on human rights and infringement upon your freedom. it is much broader. it is much slippery or. it must be kept in mind when you are talking about big data. thinking about these public databases.

to give a personal example, i own a home. there was a real estate site, it is a public filing, there is good reason for it to be a public filing in certain circumstances. i also do the identity project. is helping kids and parents understand about the data -- dangers of identity theft for children and how that ties into human trafficking and how that has escalated. whenever i go out and publicly talk about identity theft for children and importing and sources, irom mafia get some sort of something -- -- i am from so and so, i will come get you. eventually one of those people will be real. that bothers me a great deal.

it is a chilling effect. sometimes collectively the chilling of being able to stand up against things and clearly speak your mind without being worried that someone is going to be near your children are impacting her children when you're traveling around trying to prevent the very crime that is happening. i can see that very closely. the other thing was how these harms collectively happen is another personal example of health care. we have teaching hospitals close by here in the bay area. the good side of teaching hospitals is that we teach people. in doing so, you have people coming in and out of your room. god help you if you are having a child here at stanford. i guarantee you there is a flow of medical providers. it is a constant flow.

this is like party time and all i want is to sleep. what you find when you open your bill is you have these billable's from if youwho you track down have time, a law degree, and speakerphone and ask, what services were provided? it turns out a bunch of them were just observing the medical condition of having a baby. it was not denied coverage. report.ot a fair credit it was a teaching hospital doing what they do. it was a group of students accounting for their time. it results in what i would believe to be an insurance problem and it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. that to me is harm, but it is hard to articulate these things. it is still the very early days.

>> my only thought is that there are specific areas where legislatures have actively implemented specific steps above video privacy. very specific rules that apply to financial institutions. hipaa. that may have something to do the medical environmental situation. you do end up with rules and regulations that are implemented and the rulemaking process -- that is generating the predictability. these are two certain areas that commerce is looking for. i think that is good. i'm sure that will continue. there are were more specific proposals that will be coming up.

if you were to try to take all of those different statutes and say, let's overhaul everything. let's create one statute that would cover all of those areas. that cannot happen, you could not do that, you could not have one grand statute. the tailoring of the rules and treatments has to be context specific. >> absolutely. >> i absolutely agree with michelle. this is a very parochial discussion. it is very u.s.-centric. europe has a very different point of view. a difference between the european approach and the approach in the united states.

it is causing people to avoid data centers in the united states. it is a difference in rules in companies you have to worry about. think about where the data will be. those differences do make a difference. but that is why we fought a war with england. [laughter] that is not necessarily mean we have to do this. it lets us exploit the opportunity from big data. you have to make a choice between collecting the data in the first place so that it can be analyzed for its maximum potential for limiting the collection of data in deference to privacy concerns. been eliminating it from its visibility for analysis. wayr limiting in a paternal

for deference to privacy concerns. eliminating its availability for analysis. i think we have gone more in the other direction. following the floods in indonesia a couple of years ago, they were able to use cell phone data collected from people cell phones to analyze where people were going and how they were reacting in relation to the floods. it has been a tremendous boon to studies as a result of being able to get that data. you would not have this information. my sense is that we will be more respective in the united states. that is what industry is interested in. if we're going to focus on issues with the use of data,

let's focus on the context specific way and of the collection way. >> i think i hear this discussion that a piece of it is risk mitigation and trying to get that risk is close to zero as possible. i think that most of us would agree there's not going to be a company that would take it to zero and say let's not put it on the ground. there is this opportunity. there is the harm of surveillance and the potential of foreign. we have some laws that protect. the president has asked from that parochial perspective -- various folks in washington can take a look at big data to see how do we balance these risks and potential harm with the opportunity. how do we spur innovation?

there is early experience as a patent litigator. there are geographic trends. seeing what is happening and tracking the course of the flu. tremendous data comes from analytics. how will you advise the president to balance that risk and opportunity with the harm? how will you do that? we have not heard from you, professor felten. >> i think is too much to ask the president to solve this. [laughter] there are some important public policy things that can be done. they start with some pretty fundamental concepts to try to strengthen the idea of consent from the consumers and citizens, especially in a commercial context.

right now we often have this phenomenon that i call privacy theater in which someone pretends to disclose to me how might that is going to be used and then i pretended that i have understood and consented to that. [laughter] that does not really help anybody. i think getting closer to something like real consent is helpful. instead of allowing people to pretend there has been a meeting of the mind about what the expectations are. i think that outside the policy process we're going to see more technical self-help by end users. it denies that it lectures or that adds noise to the data by either securing information or even behaving in a way that is causing incorrect data to get elected.

-- collected. we are going to see all types of tactics. we are already seeing this. we're going to see a rise of privacy protected projects online. we're going to see more sophisticated ones. with respect to big data there's not only sophisticated theories on how to analyze the data, there are also sophisticated theories on how to modify and manage the data in ways that further protect privacy. i think we'll see consumers and end taking matters into their own hands. sometimes in subtle and common sense ways when we see people avoiding medical care because they do not want something in their record. up to people do more sophisticated innings and orchestrating for simulating certain online behaviors in order to give the impression

that certain things about them are true which they are not. >> i totally agree. to the point of asking the president to solve everything, which president? in my world. the 130 countries where we do business. i have a great conversation. we love to come as a technical community and have a close door. let's talk about what this is. i said don't you think a little more technical does not mean you have to be up to date on everything. he says we have ed felten. [laughter] hats off to you. you are the person. these of the fact that you could name a guy is problematic for our government. i do not think he could do that all.

hats off to you. professor felten. you are the named technical awareness engine for the u.s. government. i applaud you for that. he knows a lot of that or i would not given him the job. another thing that is really exciting is that as it turns out people are not that interesting. it seems really fun. was that a salacious thing to say? [laughter] it turns out that we have about 3000 years of big data. we understand what people do when they want to entertain themselves, etc.. the big movement is just as we learned how to sandbox and use dummy data to test applications, everyone said we cannot possibly add this.

it turns out you can. you can have a simulated datasets. you can test it in terms of big data and how people behave in malls. how they shop here at men walk in and turned right. we do not know why. you do not need to pay $5,000 per shopper to have a bluetooth and a communicator and a phone and a spy thing and permissions all over the mall to find out men turn right. you just put sporting goods stores to the right and you're off to the races. it sounds silly but what you can do is actually simulate various patterns and datasets that you want to combine so you do not have to get live cdc data. we found the back in the early 2000. -- 2000's. we said incident getting all this data and putting sensors in

airports and things, what would it take it there was a massive outbreak, where would it hit? let's do a practice run a lot of . a lot of-- let's do a practice run. information was learned about where the information was not being shared. where it should have been. where there was too much sharing. for the smaller practitioner that will continue to come and companies that can sell in modeling using large data sets be huge winners in this space. there are a couple of companies i am looking at right now. if i had a couple more dollars i would put more down on that industry. it is a hot topic and takes a lot of risk off the table to do things in silico. the other thing is we also need to have some building standards. we need our engineering schools. i am completely biased in my

latest project. it is absolutely responsible that any engineer graduates without course in practice principles. it makes me aghast to know they don't have to learn about security. these are graduate programs available but it should be no lawyer gets to practice in the u.s. without a license. not so for developers, code slingers, people creating critical infrastructure and collecting data. it is not a big silver bullet but i think every engineer and technical person must be conversant in uses of data and collection strategies and transparency strategies -- all of the known fair information practices we have had aroundd ad this since the 1960's. they may not need our technology but the ethics and framework, we have not tried to exploit yet. i refuse to believe that something that has been that static over time and tested through various incantations -- as a practitioner -- i will give you a real life example without a company attached to it.

we had a crisis were one of our important research centers was cut up by a raging wildfire. -- off by a raging wildfire. we wanted to find out quickly in we wanted to find out quickly in real-time that kids need to be picked up at school and families know their loved ones were safe and we had to evacuate and find out who was traveling that day. we had to crack open hr databases, in some cases personal databases were we had noncustodial parents that now had access to kids. the point of that was that during that context in time it was because we planned to do that, we knew when there was a beginning, a middle and and and. -- and the end. i knew when we shut down access to the databases as soon as when we opened access and that he