'15. and the notion of finding a way to satisfy the spectrum but also meet safety is something that balance has to be struck and we are prepared to try to test to succeed rather than test to fail. so we are committed to that notion. i want to set the context in terms of v to v. this estimates that it could mitigate or eliminate up to 80% of all crashes on the road. and so the promise is overwhelming. the implications for life for injuries, for productivity are enormous. so i think the predicate for moving forward has on to do no harm. find a way to share but no harm. >> i want to quickly follow up. the history of data in the automobile has been one in the automobile manufacturers having proprietary data buses keeping them closed not publishing. as a representative, is that

going to be different in -- and it's a self-asking question -- answering question. in the vehicle to vehicle world it has to be an open standard that in fact is published so your windshield wipers on one vehicle talk efficiently to another. isn't that true? >> i think it is true. but i think it is also true that in the world, dangerous world where you have malicious hackers that integrity matters a ton. and finding a balance for both is the test. >> i recognize the ranking member. i will tell you at least from this part of the day is working on legislation it makes the penalties specific, high and enforceable against those 2w0 try to maliciously attack automobiles is an area our jurisdiction is not only appropriate but our need for action is immediate. >> if i may. >> with mr. naber's permission yes. >> it's just a point that we

have a history of driving open consensus standards that fully integrate privacy and security production and can do that in the context as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. shapiro, you argued through a market approach to addressing privacy and security concerns raised by the internet of things. we all hope the companies will act responsibly and the market will punish. but suspect it clear the deposit sets clear rules as to what is and is not permissible? >> thank you. it is important i think that companies know what is legal and not legal. the company know what is legal and not legal, but there's something between the two and that's what is right and what will get customers and not. we've talked about trust for companies. brand and reputation relies entire on trust.

hipaa was passed for medical privacy. there's different information and how far it goes. hipaa that ha down sides records have been lost, vice president been transferred easily because of hipaa. there is a tradeoff. if you put too much of a line behind privacy, you're trading off opportunities for new services customers will desire. i think what companies have an obligation to provide is transparency and what they are offering and the consumers could be able to make a reasoned decision about what they are going to give up in turn for sharing their privacy. i think it's premature for congress to say this is the line we're drawing. having t

the sec can handle it and is handling it so far. >> is a quickly evolving area. before we put new services and rather than jump in, we should take a deep breath -- >> let's assume the congress chooses to disagree and chooses to enact privacy. in that case, other anyways we

should treat the internet of things differently from other companies that collect data or to the internet? >> i would like to think about that answer. off-the-cuff i would say the internet of things has easy connectivity quickly and rapidly. when knowledge is appropriate and commission, but sometimes there is and. the internet of things allows police forces to monitor crowds in a public area. it allows them to monitor conversations to see whether people are being angry or not a public area. it provides an opportunity to have video and see whether they're bad people that the fbi wants for identification of not only facial but voice. there's a tremendous opportunity here in many different areas and to me with most important is we let it play out a little bit. if you're going to legislate, it would be very specific and narrow and address a real problem. >> thank you.

you reference the consumer privacy protection principles. can you briefly describe these principles in detail? >> the written testimony goes into some depth, but focuses on things like transparency, context, data minimization and clearly the notion of express consent for marketing. we think it works, it's a floor, and i think i build on gary's point, this applies to privacy and everything else as we enter an era of massive innovation. >> we should be careful and wait for experience. >> i think the final challenge i have is that innovation

outstrips the face of regulation. we are seeing that in the area of distractions. i will give you a specific example. >> a specially given what you just said, do you think the principles used in numerator it -- you enumerated should apply to all things, or they are uniquely relevant to the mobile industry? >> think they are more broadly applicable but i'm testifying today on behalf of the auto industry and i'm reluctant to impose my judgment on others. >> i can give you my perspective. >> we are talking about the internet of things as if it is a single thing. what is the privacy settings for a winchell weber versus a watch

that is monitoring you personally? we shouldn't assume this is the wild wild west and that there is no one out there monitoring. the fcc has been engaged in is taking action. >> i know you are out of time, but the chairman will -- >> in the health context, i think you are about to see some very significant industry best practices the rise of because ultimately what is happened right now as we are seeing growth. the study came out that shows that only 15% of doctors are talking about this for their patients, nearly 50% of doctors think their patients would benefit from the use of those. the questions they have about privacy, how will affect them when data comes back. with an aging population concerned about how their information might be used for marketing or the purposes, they hate those late-night telephone calls, i think the industry right now is working very closely with a lot of folks to come up with some industry best practices they give some more bread lines.

we believe the fcc will be a good enforcement, but that's what we are today. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> you didn't get to the question of what is the garbage man say to the garbage can. i'm assuming it is you stink. that's going to cost a. with that we can magellan from pennsylvania for his question. -- we go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> today is estimated that the average home has 11 wi-fi devices. in my house with my tech savvy kids, it's triple that. i'll give you an example. my children have a different taste in music than i do. this just happened last week. i'm in the study listening to his music and the next thing i hear is captain jean-luc

picard's voice saying this does not compute. my son found a way to connect into my system and switch the music that i was playing compared to what he wants to play and tell me that he just didn't like this music. it's fascinating with these kids can do with this equipment. be that as it may, there's an unprecedented boom will require significantly more wireless spectrum. i think beyond what we realize at this point. could you expand on the implications of how this might impact the connection for consumers as well as the overall growth of the sector of the economy? >> both are significant. your household sounds like mine. i empathize with you. i agree with what my colleagues

of said about the need for more spectrum, whether it's wireless or licensed or unlicensed, in this context, wireless is particularly important. given the lack of optimization in the use of spectrum today and how spectrum is held by the government, i think there's a significant opportunity both in the deployment of iot and economically as well, to more efficiently use spectrum and make more of it available. and is a huge opportunity there. the reality is it's absolutely necessary because as we think about all of the physical world essentially being digitized, the growth that we have experienced in the use of spectrum will certainly explode. it is something we need to plan for him anticipate, and take action to deal with. >> thank you. we realize now that i can raise my garage door up and down from

2000 miles away, i can turn my lights on. what is to prevent hackers, the state-of-the-art thief from checking in on my software, on my computer system come in my house, for example i go on vacation, i will turn the heat down. they could tap into my thermostat, read when the heat is reduced over a certain period of time. come to the conclusion even the lights are going off and on that there is no one there. what does the industry due to protect us from that? >> thank you for your question and your work on a lot of the encryption and privacy issues. first off, welcome to encryption. and encryption is a critical element from preventing them from happening.

there are technological things you can do, man the middle, forms of attacks that we can run. once you start getting above 256 bit in christian, 512 bit encryption, dixon and norma's amount of power to break it. one of the questions that the consumer electronics side of the world, as well as the cloud computing side of the world is looking at is how to why put end-to-end encryption in every device and make it so no one can mess with your life, or more importantly, other things in your house that might have a direct impact on the people living there. first off, we need to make sure the government doesn't we can encryption. second, we need to continue to see the growth in the kinds of research around encryption that is supported by the government. >> i second this comments. going back to the garage door opener. when i was first introduced, was very primitive. it was fun to drive around the neighborhood and open up people's garages. same thing with cordless telephones.

if you played it right even listen to other people's conversations. it was so primitive, even though was novel then. as we gotten more sophisticated you don't even hear about those problems anymore. >> the reality is the significant investment is being made in innovating around privacy and security because is the right thing to do and because consumers are demanding it. that explains in part the shift that you have seen that mr. shapiro and mr. shapiro and mystery have articulated. >> if you can let me know when i have a device i can block my son from changing my music. >> i can help you with that. [laughter] >> mr. marino, did you get your question of the launching of your trade secrets bill today? you didn't?

ok. mr. collins will be announcing it, so hopefully you will get to talk on the next. did i mention there will be an announcement on trade secrets bill today? is anyone not hear that? we go to the gentlelady from this -- from california. represented to: -- representative chu: hackers were able to slow car on the highway. and hackers can actually minute delay these devices for evil if they so chose. what specific best practices does the agency have in place to make sure is and the like this doesn't come about and how are automobiles being designed to

prevent this from happening? >> i have five minutes? great question. the jeep back from a week or two ago that received enormous national attention. i'm struck by the need to both take the threat very seriously and we do. but also not to get caught up in the sensationalism that sometimes the companies a story like this. most things are true. our companies are designed to meet security risks from the very start. they are working with government, with academia, with third-party security technologists to address the hack risk, the hack risk is we'll -- is real, palpable, and we need to take it seriously. we begin organization a year ago that is a mechanism for the

industry to voluntarily share risk and how to address those risks. there is a mechanism that is in formation for specifically this challenge. the riskier, from a governmental side, is the one that we touched on before, which is how have the attached should there be? in a world in which innovations happen so rapidly, how do you make it work so it is not rigid? that's the challenge. so far you have facilitated sharing of risks and that's great. we hope that moves forward. rep. chu: mr. garfield. use the connectivity and communication between vehicles must be safe and reliable, that is something the congress and the department of transportation and the federal trade commission and other government stakeholders should oversee to protect consumers. you were referring to the consumer's physical safety, but

when it comes to another kind of safety, which is privacy and data security, you urge the federal government to essentially take a wait-and-see approach in asking that if we should only step in if industry fails at self-governance. what come in your mind, is your difference between these two kinds of safety that would warrant such a divergent approach? mr. garfield: mr. garfield: our suggestion is not that the government do nothing, is that the government use restraint. they've first they've been taking on privacy that is sick to early driven that use monetary enforcement by the fcc is working. in the first entrance -- instance, there's a significant market failure that may not being being met. he made action is clear. in the second instance, that is less clear. the third and final point is the point we have all made about the innovation that's taking place

in this space, not only around iot, but around ensuring that we are driving privacy and security by design at the very beginning of these processes is actually making significant headway. we worry about the unintended consequences of legislation at this stage. rep. chu: mr. shapiro, your knowledge and your testimony several concerns about the privacy. how do we rely on the industry to self regulate? i ask in regards to who owns the data over these devices and is in the industry incentivized to claim ownership mr. shapiro: we have our own wireless company

group that is focusing on creating rules that everyone can live by, in part because is the right thing to do and in part because the government will do it if they don't. there are already free market solutions which are happening quickly indifferent other verticals. for example with the automobile, hundreds of thousands of millions of consumers are already choosing to give up their data to insurance companies in return for lower insurance rates. insurance companies are monitoring how fast they drive and what they do, what kind of driving they do because the consumers feel it's not to get that information, that's informed consent and a free market decision. also their solutions coming out for parents if they want to give the kid the keys to the car, they have the ability to monitor their children and with many different solutions that are coming out quickly. my point is this is not a legitimate -- it's not that it is not a legitimate area for government conversation.

it's that they're so much happening from an innovation point of view that there are different directions we can go. if industry goes in the wrong direction, we are fully confident the government will be there saying this is wrong and consumers will be there and trial lawyers will be there. even in the distracted driving area with the federal government has stepped in rather vociferously and said industry, you should do everything you can to ban a driver from using any product: the driver seat, there are at least 80 different solutions and more developing everyday which basically cut down on distracted driving through monitoring lanes and i had falling asleep, watching your eyes, or even technology for news locally which monitors your cell phone as a driver and figures out if you are not paying attention to the road. a >> with the gentlelady yield for a follow-up question? i think her question was who owns the data? wouldn't you agree the data that

comes from an individual inherently government does a role in defining what rights they have retain protect, and retrieve their own personal identify -- personally i don't final data? mr. shapiro: this goes into a lot of areas of the internet not just the unit of things. if there are apps provided services, what is the trade-off is involved and i think it is fair to say this should be transparency if -- as to who is using the data. as to who actually owns it and can retain it. i would say that depends on the level of personal information in the data. i think whether or not you are using your windshield wipers is the type of data that can be easily collected and shared to provide information on where does rating with a lot of consumers saying that the

problem. as opposes and the more personal where you should own and determine what happens to your data. rep. issa: thank you, inge will start a dialogue it will continue. the gentleman from texas. rep. poe: thank you. the issue is privacy. the time of the dick tracy watch is here. i don't even wear a watch, so that will hope you with answers i hope. >> what time is it? rep. poe: i can't even see the clock. the data that is stored is stored by a provider. it is information about an individual, the privacy of that

individual is paramount to me. i think the law, the constitution, the right of privacy, has to be protected by congress because it's a constitutional right. privacy. congress needs to set the expectation of privacy for individuals that have shared their information with different entities. i'm concerned about the privacy of the individual in two ways. one, the provider, the service provider sharing it with other non-government agencies and the service provider providing that information to the government. especially the government. i think we should update this law, which right now information stored on the cloud

for six months is private. but six months in one day, the government can have it and there is no tradition of privacy. absurd protection of the constitutional right of privacy for 180 days only. i don't think we should leave it up to the ftc to set the guidelines or the fcc or the sec, or any other government agency decision with the right of privacy should be. another incident -- asking the question you. how do you know the answer already? should not we and congress update this law to provide whatever rules we think should be provided so that citizens know that the government, to get this information, and you can use geolocation and all other information, has got to have a search warrant based on the

fourth amendment of the constitution before they can get -- order you to give the government that information about the citizen out there in the fruited plain? shouldn't we be proactive to do that? or should we just wait for a list of things to happen and try and solve them and get the lawyers to sue in all of these things before we get the right of privacy or should congress be proactive? we haven't been able to get anywhere with updating the law so that people know the expectation of privacy that the government knows you cannot get that information without a search warrant, should not we do that, congress do that? it's kind of yes or no answer. >> the reality is this reform is essential. but something the committee has to do. congressman marino was here, and

we absolutely need these types of legislation to move forward so that we know we can tell our customers why will protect, how it will protect it, and when i will be forced to share it. rep. poe: a person may not be a customer for this very reason. i like all this stuff, it's wonderful, but i want the government getting it and right now you say maybe they can have it maybe they can't have it. >> we strongly were for reform of. >> i think you're right in terms of what the government has a right to private parties have a right to. we've been burned to the tune of billions of dollars of sales and europe and other countries are using the fact the government took information is a total competitive disadvantage now to say that cloud servers and things like that should not be based in the united states.

they are not secure, government can take the information and it's been very harmful to the u.s. technology industry. it's been used against us. under the fourth amendment yes the government must have not unreasonable searches and seizures, and that is an update. on a private basis, think it's a more complex discussion. the reasonable expectation of privacy is set by the support and court, almost like the definition of insanity. it changes with time and community and with technology. -- the definition of profanity. it's not the same as other data. rep. poe: it goes into whether it's voluntary, with you voluntarily give that information to another person. i'm adjusted about the government, the federal government, state government local government, which all right now can seize that

information in the cloud without a warrant and the first involved doesn't have notice about it. >> i would note the data is necessary to provide services that consumers want. whether it's the insurance example where you plug -- i'm one of those consumers. i know exactly how my kids drive because i get a report from the insurance company that tells you how fast they drive, how fast they are breaking, when they are driving. as a parent that's a useful thing and a disincentive for them to drive poorly. that's a good thing i wouldn't want to get in the way of services like that that are proconsumer. rep. delbene: i want to follow up on the electronics to medications

privacy act. we've sponsored legislation that would create a warrant standard for geolocation information as well as electronic communications and we talk about issues of making sure there is a legal framework to protect information so that consumers feel if they understand what's happening with their information and law enforcement is clear on how they would access information, what do you think about expanding that to include geolocation in the international issues that we face in terms of access information? i will start with mr. reid. mr. reed: thank you for your introduction, it's a very volatile thing to figure out -- a very valuable thing to figure out how we move forward. one of the things to realize for my members that are developing applications is just how much our opportunities are overseas. when the issues that you raise about u.s. government access to the data start harming our sales , it hurts jobs here in the united states.

i think you're precisely right it's an issue the congress has to step in on, can't be done through industry best practices or standards. the question of geolocation is once again something we will have to work both with you and with law enforcement, because law enforcement does have a duty to work in protect the citizenry. the problem comes when i have to tell a customer i don't know. about the answer the question of when i have to hand over that information. the difference between the sixth circuit in this idea that i have to tell my customers don't know is enormous. and the other element that should be raised on this is how other countries look at what is happening. if united states government says we have access to any cloud data at any time of any person, anyway we done well please, regardless of where the data is stored or who it is on, we have to expect that russia will want the same privileges from our company. the china will want the same privileges from our company. legislation like what you are proposing is only me, because we

need to have strong stances that we can look at those countries and say no, i won't hand over that information without some better legal authority. thank you. mr. garfield: congress has legal redress. the lack of legal redress rights in the united states is something that creates great challenges internationally. this committee in congress generally has the opportunity to do something, and other stuff he can be taken that would help internationally. rep. delbene: you are talking about encryption and we've been having a conversation recently about whether there should be a backdoor for law enforcement access to encrypted data and whether that should be mandated. if such a policy were mandated by the federal government, what with the impact be, specifically on user data and what do you think the impact would be for your customers?

mr. garfield: security is important for privacy. if you create a door, it won't only be used by those who you intended to be used by. in many respect to greater pandora's box of challenges that would be highly problematic for both privacy and security interests and is something that should absolutely not be done. we both worked in the recording industry years ago and one of the things we realized was rather than fighting technology, the best solution is deploying the use of technology, i would suggest that for the federal agents in this context, those answers may hold some merit in this context as well. >> we learned hard lessons with the clipper chip reductive that

we are facing. the reality is over 40 leading security experts have said the idea of the government mandating or creating a front door into our devices in our systems is an anathema to the idea that we want to create my tell your customers and users that we have secure systems. we have done this dancer for, it was already figured out to be a mistake. i'm disappointed we are having to revisit again when we know the answer, and that is into an encryption with as few openings as possible as the best solution we can provide to all citizens in every country. rep. delbene: we have legislation to prevent their for being such a backdoor, mr. shapiro did you want to add something? mr. shapiro: we also provides with law enforcement with their trying to do. it's a difficult question, not a black and white. i think history is shown the given government a backdoor is not the best approach as technologies evolve quickly.

on the other hand, as americans when a super crisis evolves think you will see companies step up and try to help the government. i think we sought in boston in the bombing where technology companies worked very closely to try and find out who it was the did this dastardly act. i think we have to recognize there is some flexibility that does not require an act of congress to say there must be a back door. if there is a back door everyone must have it it gets the technology industry very uncomfortable in the consumer industry very comfortable. rep. delbene: i yield back. rep. issa: with that we go to the gentleman from georgia. rep. johnson: mr. garfield, your testimony represented the desire of the industry to be free from new regulation without becoming a wild west of privacy.

earlier this year the federal trade commission reinforced this message in its staff report on the internet of things, where recommended among other things that companies build privacy and security into the designs of their connected devices. last congress i introduced an act that is a commonsense approach to an urgent problem that would protect consumers without disrupting functionality renovation through a safe harbor and other mechanisms to perform -- promote trust through self-regulation. i view this legislation is reinforcing of the ftc staff recommendations on privacy and security for connected devices and i plan to reintroduce the act during this current session of congress. privacy is an issue that should unite us, not drive us apart. in an always on ecosystem, where

over 25 billion connected devices store and transmit information about consumers, it is time that we had some rules of the road. what steps will private industry take to keep congress informed and address legislative concerns involving security and privacy of these emerging technologies? >> thank you for your question. mr. garfield: the recommendations around privacy and security of design is occurring. the industry is spending billions to invest in innovative around privacy and security, in part because it's the right thing to do, but also because consumers are demanding it. as well, we are advancing sector specific principles around privacy and security as well.

there is much action happening right now in this space, and we are committed to making sure that congress is fully aware of the steps that the private sector is making to advance those issues. it is in our business interest to be aligned with both you and consumer interest around these issues. rep. johnson: thank you. i want to focus on the version of your testimony regarding advanced driver assistance systems. i understand the benefits you are explaining about the systems, the sensors that provide braking assist and adaptive cruise control. i understand newer software will go far beyond just those actions. my concern revolves around the encryption of this technology. if these systems are being operated on a broad range of wireless committee case and technologies between vehicles, how are these frequencies being

protected? mr. bainwol: i will give you an answer and come back to you with a vetted engineers answer. based on the src, a technology that was built for the purposes of communications between vehicles and i will come back to again with specifics of the security this embedded in that. we are obviously not a point of full deployment, this is being tested. there has been an expansive test out of ann arbor over the last couple of years, has been tested abroad. the fundamental point i would make is that the benefit stream here, if you do a cost-benefit analysis, the benefit stream is enormous. yes, we've got to address the cyber risk and security risk. they are being dealt with from the design phase on the. but in terms of the security embedded, i will not back to. rep. johnson: if end-to-end

encryption be -- is being utilized, how law-enforcement answer -- access that information? mr. bainwol: we require a warrant of some sort. this is again the point that mr. poe was making. we are very careful in our principles particularly very specifically of the information will not be shared with entities unless there is a compelling specific reason. rep. johnson: there would be an ability to counter the encryption? kind of a backdoor if you will for lack of a better -- mr. bainwol: i'm not an engineer, this is his own that i am not going to have a great specific answer for.

the may come back to. rep. johnson: i yield back. rep. issa: i want to talk about something for more than a little complex and then make it simple. in the 80's and -- in the aviation space collision avoidance has been around for a while. it started with aircraft and has come down. one of the technologies is in fact mandated now in just a few years for all aircraft. it is a cute name, i've said it forever, but not have to say it is automatic dependent surveillance broadcast. eds be. it says in short here is where i

am and sends it out to everybody, the faa regulates it other aircraft are sending out where they are, receive where you are, it makes for a very exact gps-based within a few feet of knowing exactly where you are and of course, which we were going, and how fast. making a collision almost an impossible thing to do if you are simply monitoring the product which has alerts. the question, i want to make sure i ask it, when the faa having jurisdiction over this, made a decision that only those who send out a signal can in fact receive a signal. so today, systems that cost anywhere from six at the very low end to hundreds of thousands of dollars equipped aircraft, they communicate by sending out in receiving information where others are.

mobile devices, devices that could be bought for matter of a few hundred dollars that only receive are blocked from assuming that information. -- receiving that information. when you roll out a new technology coming clearly these kinds of technology are what big auto was looking at rolling out countless automobiles will not be equipped with those systems for decades to come. the 65 mustang or any other classic cars that congressman ron vargas has will not ever be equipped with them. can you comment on the need to make sure that any standard allows for aftermarket retrofitting of products that to the greatest extent possible enjoy the benefits of newer technology brought to market in new automobiles? mr. bainwol: there is a challenge in the auto space with peak penetration.

the average age of an auto was 11 years old. new technology takes a long time to wind its way through. rep. issa: now with aftermarket products. mr. bainwol: it took 30 years to go from introduction to 95% penetration. in the case of these technologies that offer such value to society, i think you raise a legitimate point that we have to find a way to fill the gap. the truth of the matter is, in part the gap is filled with the phone that gary pedals. just to give an example -- rep. issa: a match or gary wants to be called a peddler. mr. bainwol: waze's crowd sourced based, and it provides many of the benefits without the

same absolute standard of certainty. we have got to find a way to fulfill the marketplace and i think the apple world does a good job of bridging that. and then ultimately to fill the fleet. i think your point is a valid one in we got to find a way to make it work. rep. issa: mr. shapiro, the question more was, as new innovative items come out of the oem market and new fleet, and there's an ability to get perhaps some but not all of those benefits government, at least in the case of aviation has blocked the ability of thousands of small pilots, pilots with a piper cub made before you and i were born, in which a mobile device can be put on board. today they are blocked from knowing there is a fast we were headed towards them because the faa saw fit to block it unless you worsening a signal. that's really the question of enabling as much benefit from

potentially low-cost handheld devices. mr. shapiro: as a member of the flying public, i never quite understood the decision and i glad -- i am glad it is being rectified. rep. issa: all aircraft in a matter of a few years will have a ds out. today, 70 can carry a few hundred dollars product and it can roll out to receive the signal. they would be part of knowing where a fast mover is at avoiding it even if they are not putting up that signal. mr. shapiro: i am thrilled to hear you are focusing on it. i fly almost every day. the reason i have been so excited for years about driverless cars is that the level of debt -- death and interest -- injury caused by cars is huge. it can be avoided. we are on the verge of this technology in several car companies have proved it.

it would be a tragedy if it were delayed in any way because an aftermarket was not allowed to develop to move along. i think you are absolutely correct in indicating that we will get there in two different ways. one the car manufacturers themselves will do everything they can to get this technology in the public hands. along the way, as we've seen with almost every other automotive technology including car security the aftermarket is quicker and can get greater penetration and provide competition. my concerns about some of the privacy discussions are when it comes to matters of losing your limit losing your life, which is what we are talking about with collisions in cars, it's a little less important to have privacy that it is in some other areas. the privacy discussion is important, i don't want to denigrate it. but when it comes to our own physical safety, it takes a backseat. rep. issa: the two of you did take a picture early study next to each other smiling. mr. bainwol: this is not to contradict, but just to clarify.

gary used the words about fatalities in cars as of cars are killing people. i want to clarify that 95% maybe 98% or 99% of the fatalities on the roads are result of environmental challenges and human error. the car itself worked rather beautifully. in the critical point that we would both embrace -- rep. issa: i think he was talking about any luck breaks traction control, all the items that come out that have reduced the death rate in all too flawed drivers. mr. bainwol: we are very proud of those technologies we want to see the move into the fleet as soon as possible. those technologies are the answer to human error, which is a huge problem. rep. issa: mr. reed, said you were given credit for development of apps, your

members wanting to be able to develop apps depend on either an open standard or, in the alternative, being able to come if you will hack it able to create interfaces because otherwise you are locked out of interfaces with the automobile and other products. mr. reed: it will end up with published standards and when i believe will be interfaces where i won't have to hack it, there is a connotation to hack which is a little on. what will end up happening is that they will be published by the car manufacturers that will line the -- allow me to tie into the existing structure. or it will do to the phone i will have a secure, safe api platform that i can build up the apps on. i'm quite hopeful about the connected car. they got the place were you will see an explosion of apps that will be really helpful and beneficial especially those

with less kids in the back seat. rep. issa: i mentioned that we do not have in this committee the jurisdiction over the bandwidth necessary for many of your products. we do, however, have a mandated seat at the table and consultation with the ways and means committee and with the administration in trade. under trade promotion authority for both the european trade and the pacific. i would like any of you that want to comment on the importance of global standards getting the internet of things to in fact be embraced in a way around the world that allows either for economy of scale or consistency of service and i will go right on the line on that trade mr. shapiro. mr. shapiro: global stators are nice but not essential. we have seen technology that politico and ego often plays to

whose country standards, there are several. rep. issa: is also talking of the access, the trade promotion is intended to have her in the acceptance without terror for barrier of american roddick's. mr. shapiro: standard is one issue, and trade promotion is good. we are very excited with the direction things are taken in the last month during its positive, obviously to the extent that these devices get out there and they are improving people's lives in saving lives, it's an important thing. there's an international approach, that's always preferred to one that's country by country high tariff. mr. garfield: i think the opportunity of highlighted that trade agreements provide for driving global consensus-based standards that help to advance scalability and interoperability are net positive. hence our strong support for

trade promotion authority and ultimately the trade deals that will emanate as a result of that. mr. bainwol: it's complicated. the notion of harmonization is valid. it's been around for 100 years is a concept. we are building a different standard all around the globe and that ends up upping the cost of products for consumers all over, a new car is safer than an old car, if we reduce the cost of product of harmonization we get more people into newer cars and that is safer and good for everybody. mr. reed: we see 20% of apps and china are actually from u.s. companies, which is huge if you look at the china market, it's hard. that leads me to the second part. our one concern about standards

is that we are fighting some countries are dipping their talent to the idea of creating domestic open standards that are slightly tweaked from the united states, these are stripped the barriers that they are putting up to protect domestic manufacturers, domestic apt developers. we have seen it in the wi-fi space around the globe, we are seeing tweaks to standards to protect domestic production. we would support your perspective on improving trade and improving the standard so they are available to all. rep. issa: on that note with no further questions, this will conclude today's hearing. i want to thank all our witnesses without objection members will have five legislative days to submit additional questions for witnesses and additional material for the record, that also leaves are witnesses five days, if you could please, to provide additional material including that which some of you promised to give to our members.

with that, we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the only pirate to ever have fought the british navy to the standstill but to navy royal frigates. most pirate see the british navy and hightail it out. he fired the first shot. >> this sunday night on q&a, author robert person on the search for the pirate ship the golden fleece, and its captain wealthy merchant turned pirate joseph banister. >> he started off his life not as a pirate, but as a noble

english sea captain, gentlemen trusted by very wealthy shipowners to seal their ships this beautiful 100 foot wooden sailing ship between london and port royal, jamaica, known then as the wickedest city on earth. and to carry valuable cargo like indigo dye between london and port royal. for years he did that responsibly and nobly. one day in 1684 for reasons no one can quite determine, joseph banister stole his own ship recruited a top-flight pirate crew, and went on the account he turned pirate. >> sunday night at eight across eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you events that shape public policy and every morning, "washington journal," is live with elected officials, policymakers, journalists, and your comments

by phone facebook and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> yesterday the justice department announced indictments against them credit congressman chaka fatah on 29 counts including bribery, money laundering, and bank fraud charges from his failed campaign from arrow philadelphia. he faces a sentence of up to 100 years of conviction convicted on all charges. the congressman responded to the indictments. >> anyway arrived at a moment at which we have actual allegations of wrongdoing.

we have not received the indictments, i just talked to my attorney in philadelphia. we have not had a chance to review it. i did hear a little bit about it. all i want to say is that i have spent my time helping people. we have helped at least 25 million that we can count. i want to spend my time helping millions more. i'm going to let my attorney, a small one-man shop in philadelphia, but he knows this matter. it's honestly going to be important to my constituents that this matter not be a distraction to my work. i'm going to try not to have it be a distraction. >> do you apply -- plan on staying in capitol hill? >> this is not deflategate. with a normal issue of which there are allegations, after a very long running a your investigation. i did note it started in 2013

thing from your own coverage you know that's not true. you look back through the records from this, this has been flying for at least eight years. we now have actual allegations in a chance to respond. i stand by my previous statement that i'd never been involved in any wrongdoing, or any other lawful activity. any misappropriations. i think there's a lot for us to digest was receiving indictments. i understand it is a rico charge. what's unusual about it is that none of the people involved in a government involved in any type of wrongdoing before. i think on first blush the one thing returning from philadelphia, he said this at the end. these are allegations and the people involved in that are innocent until proven otherwise. >> what did speaker boehner say?

>> i have not spoken to him, but i'm going to recuse myself until this matter is cleared up. thank you. >> [indiscernible] >> i'm not the one making allegation. we haven't had a chance to review yet, but i am confident my statement. >> is it too late after nine years, eight years of allegations? >> i'm not distracted yet. i'm going to keep doing my work. >> "washington journal,"'s next live with your phone calls. later the senate foreign relations committee holds the. sanction relief in the iran nuclear deal. in about an hour, senator tom udall on efforts to overhaul

toxic chemical regulations. also north dakota senator on energy and climate change and reports that the administration will reject the proposed keystone xl pipeline. the house panel on ben gas stkeu has confirmed that hillary clinton will appear before the panel. they'll question her e-mail arrangement. the philadelphia enquirer reporting that federal prosecutors inindicted miss appropriated funds. in a statement the congressman said, i have never