we and organizations of business need to do a better job being transparent across the board as to what is going on. >> let's look forward a look at from building on this conversation. we have talked about difficulties with implementation. i think we have all agreed standards in europe could be more clear and made more easy to implement. we better off if europe actually specifies the right to be forgotten in their protection regulation and takes what the european court of justice did and make it more specific, so we have more specific standards? also, how do you see this playing out, a similar debate playing out in the united states. we had a huge debate over the free-speech invocations of

hipaa. can you talk about that? >> there is this unpleasant reality that the internet is a global medium. google implemented this on hundreds of specific sites where they say all but 5% of the search traffic occurs in the e.u. if you go to france or germany or whatever, you get the unfiltered results. suppose they decide they do not like that. do they say you can show those results to people outside the e.u. proxy servers exist elsewhere. suddenly you have this regime to stop people from being embarrassed. that seems excessive. this really strikes me as the law equivalent of an older the court kind of did not know

how to edit. they said we know this could be exploited but we will figure it out in practice. >> can i respond to the wikipedia stuff? favorite cases when i was a general counsel for wikipedia was this. two convicted german murderers who had served their time for having killed a german eventuallystar were -- they served their time and got out on good behavior. they were convicted in 1993 and got out in 2008. what happened between 1993 and 2008 was search engines happen. even though the german system was theoretically quite humane in allowing ex-cons to reintegrate into society -- they are much better at it than we are.

the fact is any employer doing a search on the internet about these guys discovered they were convicted murderers. my solution to this, since wikipedia doesn't have anything like legal resources that google or bing or you have, i ignored ve, i ignored it for as long as i could. i said what will happen is the german lawyers will go get a judgment against us and they will try to enforce it in the united states. then i'll come back and win in federal court. that was my first answer. -- my second answer was this. they were so annoying that i was just going to give this story to the new york times, which i did. the new york times went and interviewed the german lawyers and published their names. i said this is ok. at least now, i have demonstrated this story is

public interest. it is a public interest issue when people try to erase their history of murders. then i realized that instead of suing wikipedia they have to sue the becausek times" first it has a bigger audience. "new york times" has very good lawyers. they are very good. i was very comfortable with that. and i am looking at this european court of justice decision that says we will exempt newspapers for reasons that do not make sense but we will go after search engines. what is wikipedia more like? it is not like an artistic or literary site. it is not like scientific research. basically, it is an encyclopedia hobby that people have created. my solution would not work anymore. if you really care about

wikipedia stuff, you're upset about the fact that somebody might take some that -- might take wikipedia way or it might have holes in its history. if you agree with me there is a right to remember, you are troubled by this and you don't want to have to resort to a hipaa-like blackout of wikipedia to make the point. you would like to have inset throughout europe and the rest of the world that the internet is not territorial or geographic. it is something else. we are going to have to live in a world in which a lot of data is searchable. a lot of citizens have a right not only to express themselves but to seek and impart data according to the international human rights instruments. >> i agree. i think this is the conversation

that we need to have. the first ring i would ask the europeans to do is let's get rid of the phrase, the right to be forgotten. it is actually not what the language and current revisions of the regulation actually does. there was originally this concept that individual posters would have to go back to where they got the information. that would have to be taken off of there, which would really get to forgetting. we are talking more about the limited rights around access and alicia/deletion. those limited rights have profound implications. i do believe that the language, the right to be forgotten has misled a lot of people. i would say we have done things like this before. flexible standards

important for protecting individuals and then defined guidelines and case law underneath. in the u.s., the primary mechanism protects against unfair and deceptive trade practices. what is an unfair and deceptive trade practice? how could we figure that out? it is subjective, we could never determine it. a lot of scholars say we are now developing a common law of privacy. it is under the section five cases that give guidance along with the work the ftc has done to provide their opinions about how they would come out on particular issues. we need to start having that conversation with the europeans about how would we interpret these kinds of standards. >> a quick question. the problem is the right to be forgotten is really catchy and easy to understand. so are things like eraser butt

ons. toneed a good p.r. term express the concept people are worried about. >> i don't do p.r. brieflyt to reply was mentioned, as if this is something we need to invent. it already exists. a lot of this discussion assumes that people that show up in google search results have no agency of their own. has someone talked to him and asked if he thought about putting up a blog post saying me and the tax authorities are good? it is paid off. you have the right to reply. there's a problem when you -- when you're attempt to correct the record goes ignored by search engines. a lot of people do not know how to argue online. somebody made up a law about that. that is a competitive issue.

we need no court ruling or legal doctrines to establish a right to say something online that says someone else's wrong on the internet. argued when he sued in court in spain in the privacy regime in spain. he wanted the records of his forced sale of bankruptcy. this was mr. gonzales. >> first name mario. >> it was a forced sale. what he did was he wanted the record removed from a spanish newspaper. secondarily he wanted google to remove any links. he understood. he had clarity about what he wanted. he did not want it to be harder to get to. he wanted it gone.

it argues for the coherency of his intellectual position that he asks for everything a reasonable person would want and the court did not give it to him. the ecj did not give him the conclusion that he was asking for. i think while he is probably rejoicing in his newfound popularity as the beater of google in the european union, he would have to admit that he wanted more than what he got. it is difficult to be intellectually consistent about that --or google is against that of the spanish newspaper. >> they managed to put some real meat on those bones. to me this really points to the , need for data protection authorities

in europe to provide much better guidance than search engines currently have for how to implement this trade we see google is putting together an advisory council. they are asking for public comment. they are re-creating public world procedure. they have this obligation that they need to comply with. i think that is their best effort to figure out how to balance these free expression rights that are at stake. but that is not a job for a private company to be doing. that is the responsibility of government. there was not enough guidance in the ecj opinions. it is now on the data protection authorities to provide guidelines not just for the bings of the world. he kept mentioning all the great different lawyers . it is great they have them. and they're working hard to figure out what to do

here. a smaller company that starts out with a couple of engineers and doesn't immediately think we need to have regulatory affairs lawyers on staff they are , going to have a difficult time trying to figure out how to operate in europe. it is so cumbersome to figure out how to implement this without guidance. it is on the data protection authorities now to figure out what is this careful balancing of public interest. what are the scope of these different terms? >> very briefly. the example i think of is a popular blogger like andrew sullivan. there is a really popular blog. there is a request to take something down in the comments area. it is easier to take it down. they don't have the capacity to do anything else. >> i think her point is a fantastic one and it is worse than what she said. i think it calls out how something needs to be done about

the system in europe with the directives. they have been trying to do that with regulation. what we haven't talked about is the directive has a floor, not a ceiling, about how they protect the data. they have to implement that directive in their own law. they can go above and beyond and they can interpret their own implementations in their own way. what you have now is a system with 28 authorities who can come up with their own interpretation of how you would implement this. the draft regulations has been a top priority. organizations have said it is not tenable for a global corporation to figure out. we need a robust, predictable, and harmonized standards and enforcement. the draft regulation has made attempts to do that. we need more conversation about how we get there. >> we are coming down to the end of our hour and i wanted to leave a little time for audience questions.

if you could raise your hand if you have questions. someone will come around with a mic. >> i am with the center of copyright integrity. the conversation is greater and it is global. they are stealing it at a cost to people. people's names and identities are their brands. this should not be a conversation period. all search engines need to pull back and pay for content they use without permission. people always been able to

remove data. >> if there is a question -- >> to bring it to a close, you need to have all the search engines to ask people permission. they build models that people are going to be paid for content. i am a brand, you are a brand, he is a brand. >> anyone else have a question? >> this question is a little -- it deviates a little from the conversation we had but it is still very much within this space. what you think the impact this will have an this discussion will have on the research, research communities? if a researcher wants to use a webpage that posted mugshots as a research tool and they want to scrape that they do in order to publish -- that data to publish in a scholarly journal, what impact do these privacy

regulations ultimately have on scholarly research abilities? >> the research is not at all privileged. it is not called up by the regulation as it stands. the specific callouts are journalism and literary and artistic expression. research as such, and i agree there is a role for that, it is not called out. >> there is no question it has an impact on researchers. the analogy that has been used is it is like torturing the card catalog at a library. the books are still all going to be there, it is just going to be hard to find them. >> the regulation applies to card catalogs by its own terms. >> it is funny you wanted to protect journalism in terms of not making newspapers takedown stories. it could also make journalists'

by researching by name. >> we have a question over here. >> i think what she described is a tax on the public domain in terms of large and small entities trying to comply. doesn't the idea of handing this off to a recognized consortium of all search engines or to an official body subject it to political control make one's skin crawl? >> i think it could. it would depend on what level of transparency there is and what level of oversight and public oversight there is of a body like that. i think the question is, is your skin not already crawling that these organizations are not making

this decision read that decision in a transparent way? >> very low barriers to entry. anyone who thinks of what the next google or wikipedia looks like can just join at a nominal price. >> on a better response to his core question to me earlier, i say that instead of the right to be forgotten, maybe we can talk about this as asks us for for obscurity. >> we have time for one or two more questions. >> one of the points made is the internet is not or should not be territorial. it is clear there is a different understanding in the e.u. it is enshrined in basic treaties. it is the basic building block

as opposed to the u.s. where it is more difficult. i understand there is interest in getting the e.u. to go one way on the date of protective directives. coming from the e.u. and having experienced the debate from within, that is most likely not going to happen. all of these companies will have to deal with 20 different directors. what would be the practical guidelines or tools you would suggest they start using? >> let me answer that as briefly as i can. in the e.u. one thing i found heartening is we are now recognizing the long-standing data retention requirements are now being recognized as violative of fundamental human rights. in the united states, we have not had data retention as a requirement. now we are pushing for it. some are pushing for it. when you analyze this, one thing you have to say is the u.s. has tried to carve out places of

consensus where there are clear understandings of what the privacy interests are. even if it is as small as video rental records, that we have a separate log for as you may know, but i think there is someplace in the middle that does not have the notion of data retention for eventual possible police purposes and also does not have the inconsistent coverage of capturing private information under the u.s. system. i think we are going to have to have a multinational dialogue about it. it is one of the reasons some of us are looking at internet governance models trying to think hard about them and especially to have multi-stakeholder models to make sure it is not just government advancing government interests but everybody advancing every stakeholder interest.

as we seek convergence on internet governance in the next decade, we will begin to see some particular issues emerge and international consensus on them. >> i would say that absent a one-stop shop model happening in the regulations, what we have is the article 29 working party being able to come together. there are think tanks like the future of privacy forum that do a phenomenal job of generating a multi-stakeholder dialogue to make recommendations for practical privacy guidelines in situations like this. let's have that dialogue. let's bring that to the article 29 working party. let's let them do their job of providing opinions on how to and -- implement the existing requirements in the directive. >> on that note, we are out of time. we are going to have to cut off further questions. i would like to thank everyone for attending in the middle of august recess.

this is fantastic. i would like to thank our panelists. both the audio podcasts and video will be on the internet caucus advisory website as well as the video on c-span. thank you once again for attending. [applause] >> if you missed any of this conversation about online privacy, you can find it online at the c-span video library. coming up tonight, former secretaries of state. form posted by the aspen institute. secretary gates talked about ukraine and russian foreign-policy. reasons weone of the face a serious crisis and why it is the worst since the end of the cold war is putin is trying

to upend two points of international order that people thought were settled. one was that border changes could only be resolved through peaceful negotiations and notent of the parties, and satisfaction or revenge as claims by force. the second was the freedom of sovereign states to choose which other countries with whom they wanted to ally politically, economically, and for security. has of those putin essentially thrown aside. what the europeans and we for a long time felt was a matter settled at the end of the cold war is now very much back on the table.

>> you can hear more from defense secretary robert gates and the former secretaries of state tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> while congress is on break, c-span's primetime features a wide range of political views and topics. we visit the atlanta press club for the future of news. we take a history tour looking at the civil war. c-span prime time monday through friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. you can e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. this month, c-span presents debate on what makes america great, evolution, and genetically modified foods.

issue spotlights with in-depth looks at veterans and campus assaults. new perspectives on global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety. showinghistory tour sights and sounds from historic basis. find our schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. join the conversation. like us on facebook. >> at the white house today, president obama talked about u.s. airstrikes in iraq. he warned the u.s. military intervention in iraq could be long-term. his statement was about 25 minutes.

>> good morning. over the past two days, american pilots and crews have served with courage and skill over iraq. the first american forces have targeted airstrikes against terrorists to prevent them from advancing on the city. that protects our diplomats and personnel. they've destroyed arms and equipment that terrorists could have used against them. kurdish forces on the ground defend the city. we have stepped up our military assistance to kurdish forces as they wage their fight. our humanitarian effort continues to help the men, women, and children stranded. we have conducted two successful airdrops. we have dropped meals and water to these desperate people. american aircraft are positioned

to strike terrorists around the mountain to help forces break the siege and rescue those who are trapped there. even as we deal with these immediate situations, we will have a broader strategy in iraq. we will protect our american citizens in iraq whether they are diplomats, civilians, or military. if they threaten our facilities or personnel, we will take action to protect our people. we will provide military assistance and advice to the iraqi government as they battle these terrorists. they will not be able to establish a permanent safe haven. we work with the international community to do with the humanitarian crisis in iraq. the terrorists cannot establish a permanent safe haven. we will work with the international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis in

iraq. even as our attention is focused on preventing genocide, many have been driven from the homes including christians. i spoke with mr. cameron of the u.k. and president hollande of france. both leaders expressed their support for our actions and agreed to join us in providing humanitarian assistance to civilians who are suffering so much. we are proud to act alongside our closest friends and allies. the united nations is working to respond to the needs of those fleeing from areas under threat. security council has called on the international community to provide a food and shelter. in my calls with allies around the world, we can join them in this humanitarian effort. we continue to call on iraqis to come together and form a an inclusive government that they need right now. vice president biden has been

speaking to iraqi leaders and our team in baghdad is in close touch with the iraqi government. all communities are threatened by these barbaric terrorists. we are focused on the situation in the north. sunni and shia in different parts of iraq have suffered mightily. once an inclusive government is in place, it will be easier to mobilize iraqis against isil. only iraqis can ensure the stability of iraq. we cannot do that for them, but we will be partners in an effort.

one final thing as we go forward, we will coordinate with congress. we will show gratitude to our men and women in uniform who are conducting our operations there. they were ready as they always are. they performed with distinction as they always do. when we see them serving with such honor and compassion, it makes us proud to be americans as we always will be. let me take a couple of questions. >> for how long a period of time do you see these airstrikes continuing? is your goal to contain isis? >> i won't give a timetable because wherever u.s. personnel is threatened, it is my obligation and responsibility to make sure that they are protected. we are not moving our embassy. we are not moving our consulate. given the challenges, we are going to maintain vigilance and

ensure that our people are safe. our initial goal is to not only make sure that americans are protected but also deal with this humanitarian situation. we feel confident that we can prevent isil from going up a mountain and slaughtering the people who are there. the next step will be complicated logistically. how do we give safe passage to people down from the mountain and where can we relocate them so that they are safe. that is what we have to do internationally. i was pleased to get the co-op eration of mr. cameron in addressing some of the immediate needs.

there is a broader set of questions that our experts are engaged in with the united nations and our allies and partners. that is who we -- how we create a safe corridor so they can move. that may take time. there are estimates of how many people are up there. it is in the thousands. moving them is not simple. just to give people a sense of a timetable, the most important timetable that i am focused on is the government getting formed and finalized. in the absence of the iraqi government, it is hard to get a unified effort by iraqis. we can conduct airstrikes. there is not going to be an american military solution to

this problem. there is going to have to be an iraqi solution that we support. that cannot happen effectively until you have a legitimate government. we have a president. we have a speaker. we don't have a prime minister and a cabinet that is formed. then they can start reaching out to all of the various groups and factions inside iraq. they can give confidence to a population in the sunni areas that isil is not the only game in town. we can take security forces that are able and functional and they understand who they are reporting to them what they are fighting for and what the chain of command is.

there should be a structure with better cooperation taking place in we're going to be pushing very hard to encourage iraqis to get their government together. until we do that, it will be hard to have a community of effort to play defense and engage in some offense. >> we have fought long wars in afghanistan and iraq. how do you assure the american people that we are not getting dragged into another war in iraq? have you underestimated the power of isis? is there any thought of international partners in terms of military action to prevent the spread of isis? >> number one, we will not have combat troops in iraq again.

we are going to maintain that because we should have learned the lesson from our long and immensely costly incursion in iraq. our military is so effective. we can keep a lid on problems if we put enough personnel and resources into it. it can only last if the people in these countries are able to arrive at the kinds of political accommodation and compromise that any civilized society requires. it would be a big mistake for us to think that we can go him and tamp everything down again and

restart without some fundamental shift in attitudes among the various iraq he factions. that is why it is so important to have a responsible government on the ground that we can help and partner with that has the capacity to get alliances in the region. once that is in place, we end up being one of many countries that can work together to deal with a broader crisis. what were your other questions? i think there is no doubt that their movement over the last several months has been more rapid and the intelligence estimates and expectations of

policymakers both in and out of iraq. part of that is not a full appreciation to the degree to which the security forces when they are far away from baghdad do not have the incentive or the capacity to hold the ground against an aggressive adversary. that is one more reason why the government formation is so important. there has to be an understanding of who it is the security forces are reporting to and what they are fighting for. there has to be some investment by sunnis in pushing back against isis. we are already seeing a degree to which those territories

alienate populations because of the brutality with which they operate. in order to ensure that sunni populations reject outright these kinds of incursions, they have to feel like they are invested in a broader national government. right now they don't feel that. the upshot is what we've seen over the last several months indicates the weaknesses in the iraqi government. what we have also seen is a wake-up call for a lot of iraqis inside of baghdad.

recognizing that we're going to have to rethink how we do business if we're going to hold the country together. hopefully, that change in attitude supplemented by improved security efforts, which we can assist in helping, that can make a difference. >> you just described the complications for the iraqi government. is it possible that what you have described would take years and not months? >> i don't think we're going to solve this problem in weeks. i think this is going to take some time. in order to mount an offensive, they are going to have to revamp and get resupplied and have a clear strategy.

that is all going to be dependent on a government that the people and the military have confidence in. we can help of all of those efforts. part of what we are able to do is reserve a space for them to do the hard work that is necessary. if they do that, the one thing that has changed is many of the sunnis in the region who have been generally suspicious or wary of the iraqi government are more likely to join in in the fight against isis. that can be extremely helpful.

this is going to be a long-term project. part of what we have seen is a minority population in iraq as well as a majority population in syria has felt dissatisfied and unattached and alienated from their respective governments. that has been a right territory for extremists to operate in. rebuilding governance in those areas and legitimacy for stable and moderate governing is going to take some time. there are some immediate concerns that we have to worry about. we have to make sure that isil is not engaging in actions that could cripple a country permanently.

there is key infrastructure inside iraq that we have to be concerned about. my team has been vigilant even before they went into modal about foreign fighters gathering in syria and iraq that might launch attacks against western targets. there is a counterterrorism element. we are already preparing and working diligently for a long time now. there is going to be a military element protecting our people. the long-term campaign of changing that environment so that the millions of sunnis who live in these areas feel connected to an well served by a national government.

that is a long-term process. that is something that the united states cannot do. only the iraq he people can. if we can't do it for them. the u.s. military cannot do it for them. this comes back to the earlier question about military involvement. the nature of this problem is not one that the military can solve. we can assist. our military can play an important role in bolstering efforts of an iraqi partner as they make the right steps to keep their country together. we can't do it for them. last question. >> do you anticipate asking congress for some -- additional funds? >> we are currently operating

within budget constraints that we already have. we will have to evaluate what happens over time. we have a lot of assets in the region. we anticipate when we make our budgets that there may be things that come up that requires us to engage. right now at least, we are ok. if and when we need additional dollars to make sure that american personnel and facilities are protected, we will make that request. right now that is not our primary concern. >> you have any second thoughts about owing all ground troops out of iraq? does it give you pause about doing the same thing in afghanistan? >> what i find interesting is the degree to which this issue

keeps coming up as if this was my decision. under the previous administration we had turned over the country to a sovereign and democratically elected iraqi government. in order for us to maintain troops in iraq, we needed the invitation of the iraqi government and we need assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if they were protecting themselves and got into a firefight with iraqis. they would not be hauled before an iraqi judicial system. the government based on its political considerations because they were tired of the u.s. occupation they declined to provide us those assurances.

on that basis we left. we offer to leave additional troops. when you hear people say the regret not leaving more troops, that presupposes that i would've overridden a sovereign government that we had turned the keys over to. you are democratic and sovereign except if i decide that is good for you to keep 10,000 or 25,000 marines in your country. you don't have a choice. that would've run contrary to the argument we were making about turning over the country back to iraqis. that was not made not just by me but the previous administration. the reason that we did not have more forces in iraq was because they did not want u.s. troops there.

politically they could not pass the kinds of laws it would be required to protect our troops. if the government behaved the way it did over the last five or six years where it failed to pass legislation that would have reincorporated sunnis and given them a sense of ownership, if it had targeted certain sunni leaders and alienated some of the sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006, the country would not be holding together either. we would just have a bunch of troops on the ground. however many troops we had, we

would now have to be reinforcing. i would have to be protecting them and we would have a much bigger job. we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of ground troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable. that analysis is bogus. it is wrong. it gets peddled often held around here. going forward with respect to afghanistan, we are leaving. the lesson for afghanistan is not the fact that we have got a force that will be capable of

training and supporting afghan security efforts. the real effort is if actions in a country after a long. of civil war do not find a way to come up with a political accommodation, if they take positions and their attitude is i want 100% of what i want and the other side gets nothing, then the center does not hold. the good news is in part thanks to the excellent work of john kerry and others, we are now seeing two candidates in the recent presidential election start coming together in agreement to move forward on the audit and certify a winner in the election. these are the kind of accommodations that would be required to keep the moccasin moving. that is the real lesson for afghanistan. if you want this thing to work, whether it is different

ethnicities or religions or regions, they have to accommodate each other. otherwise we get back into old patterns of violence. it doesn't matter how many u.s. troops are there if that happens. you wind up having a mess. thanks a lot, guys. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama now in vacation in martha's vineyard for two weeks,. his home state hawaii is holding primaries as hurricanes pass through the island. governor neil abercrombie, who has a thriving economy on his side, and state senator david e gay