host: john simpson, do you support the fact that the fcc may do some rulemaking? john: absolutely. once they reclassified this as common carriers, like a telephone company, that meant had toeir regulations apply. and there are specific privery seg lyings that relate to the data that gets scattered over the network by the provider. they have to do it. the question is, most of the rules that exist existed in the world of telephones. now that they've extended by reclassification the situation to cover i.s.p.'s, they have to come up with rules that are appropriate to the world of the internet. not just the telephones. that's what this is about.

peter: jim halpert, do you support this rulemaking process, a, and what should be in it? jim: i agree with john that there's confusion right now as to what privacy rules apply and it makes sense for the f.c.c. to move forward and describe what rules it's going to apply in greater detail. in terms of what should be in that rule, i think that's really the key question, which we'll be discussing today. there is considerable disagreement. one can take the view that the internet ecosystem is one whole entity, that i.s.p.'s are a particular player in that. but fundamentally in the world of internet advertising, for example, i.s.p.'s are a very small player in that market right now. and there ought to be one set of rules, if a consumer has an

apple iphone, they don't expect a different set of rules to apply to the internet connection that they receive than would apply to the operating system that sees all the traffic going across that phone or any of the apps on the phone. so there's an argument for consistency and john will present an argument for exceptionalism, i think. john: that's not exactly right. one of the things to think about here is what precisely kind of regulatory authority does the federal trade commission -- did it have in the past? the fact of the matter is about all they could do was, under what's known as section five violation, which is an unfair deceptive practice. and so that basically meant that if a company said they were doing something with your information in their privacy policy, and turned around and did something different, then they could be retroactively hit with some kind of a fine or something like that. that happened to google.

$22.5 million. they said they were not -- they were honoring -- blocking third party cookies but in fact acting around them. $22.5 million. it was retroactive. the f.c.c. affirmatively now, under the fact that the communications law will cover them as communications -- as common carriers, they have to make rules. the f.t.c. never had rules. they didn't have any rulemaking authority. it's all been about -- peter: before we go any further here, let's bring howard buskirk into the situation. he's the executive senior editor of communications daily. howard: i wanted to ask you, first of all, what are the concerns of the i.s.p.'s in terms of where the f.c.c. may be headed in this area? what would be your biggest concerns? jim: i'm not here representing any particular i.s.p. i have done a lot of work with clients in many different areas, including i.s.p. clients. but i think the concern is that

if one were to apply the current telecommunications privacy rules, which were developed in the context of the telecom reform act of 1996, which was a world of -- the rules really do not work very well in a world of the internet where you have apps and you have internet advertising companies, you've got operating systems, all these different players are involved in and collecting a certain amount of information and also involved in delivering services. so the broad concern from the i.s.p.'s would be that they would be discriminated against. on the one hand they're required under the net neutrality order to carry all traffic that goes across their systems, they're regulated as a sort of common carrier and required to support all these different entities. and then they uniquely would be prohibited from participating in the internet advertising

marketplace, which they currently are very, very small players. so the idea that they would have to carry the traffic but be unable themselves to obtain any sort of advertising revenue , by virtue of information that they obtain by virtue of providing internet access service, strikes many of the i.s.p.'s as very unfair and also really dealing with a tiny part of the interecosystem that is not currently a major player in the world of advertising. it's really that this would be a rational and discriminatory -- john: aren't there questions about how much data the i.s.p.'s actually would have to protect and how much data -- in the changing ecosystem, how much there actually -- how much data that they're responsible for? jim: there's a study that just came out by the former privacy czar in the clinton white house. colleagues at georgia tech. which showed that the majority

of internet traffic by the end of this year is going to be encrypted. so all the contact of the communications will not be visible to the i.s.p. on the other han an operating system provider would see that traffic unencrypted. so actually would have more information than the i.s.p. would. furthermore i.s.p.'s, we're no longer in a world where people access the internet only from home v their home i.s.p. the average consumer uses 6.1 devices to connect to the internet, bizarrely. and most consumers are using three to five different internet access providers to connect to the internet every day. so the single home i.s.p., for example, does not have a unique view of a huge amount of user activity. and if you consider that -- think about it. if you take your smartphone, you connect to wi-fi, which 46% of mobile users are doing for their internet traffic, that

information's going through a wi-fi provider. if you access the internet from home, you will typically have a home internet provider. if you access information on your mobile device when you're not connected to wi-fi, your wireless provider will be collecting information. and then your work i.s.p. provider, whoever's providing broadband service at the office, will also potentially collect some information. this is a much more fragmented universe with of the data encrypted of the i.s.p. anyway. john: that particular study has been disputed by a number of people recently. i think about 65% of the data right now is unencrypted. that's talking about, yes, the content of what's going over. but what's just as significant and just as revealing is the information of what site you went to and how long you were therement and sort of tracking

types of sites that you visit and then having ads targeted on the basis of that sort of information. it is correct that the current rules that apply to common carriers were from the world of telephones and they aren't adequate and really don't correctly categorize the kinds of information that should come under the f.c.c. privacy rules with broadband access providers. and that's what this rule make something all about. trying to figure out which things are in fact what's known as cp -- customer proprietary network information. that's the data you gather simply by virtue of someone plugging into your network. and the idea is that you ought not to be able to use that data for purposes other than completing the network transaction, unless the person gives permission for that to happen. that's the way it works in the telephone world. and it should work the same way

in the broadband internet access providing world. host: for the average subscriber, why should he care about that information? howard: will are there ways in which the carriers of the i.s.p.'s are monetizing or using this data that's raising concerns -- john: sure. now you can -- you get that data, you pro-- a profile can be put together about you and you can then be sort of targeted for kinds of advertising that can end up being discriminatory and taking advantage of you in ways that probably aren't entirely fair. and while it is true that, you know, the internet is more than just the internet access providers, they are in a unique position in terms of you pretty much have to go through one and it's appropriate because they are unique to recognize that and deal with the data that they gather.

we can talk about other questions around the so-called providers, the googles, the facebooks, all that. i believe there should be some rules put in place there. but that's not the subject of this particular f.c.c. provision at this point. jim: i think you do need to look at the internet ecosystem as whole. it is -- first of all, for the reasons i described, it's not true that i.s.p.'s have a uniquely broad view of user behavior. there's also no indication that i've read of that i.s.p.'s are analyzing all the unencrypted traffic that goes through their network and all the places where users are going. but even if that were the case, that is exactly what internet advertising business models do today. and it's not particularly harmful. it's essentially presenting ads that you may be interested in based on where you're going on he internet.

this is how the ad-supported free internetworks today. the i.s.p.'s are tiny players in the world of internet advertising. there are strong self-regulatory requirements that i.s.p.'s and others in this ecosystem have all made to follow privacy opt-out rules in a variety of ways that give consumers notice and control. those are absolutely enforceable today. there's nothing that would change that. they're binding commitments. and to break off what's today a tiny piece of the internet advertising ecosystem and subjecting it to rigorous rules that consumers won't understand , and ignore the whole rest of the internet ecosystem, is not really a rational approach to privacy on the internet. the fact is that, given the way that congress is con figured right now, and the house of representatives is likely to

remain under pretty libertarian republican control for at least six years and probably another 10 after that, it's virtually certain that there will be no general privacy legislation that applies to the internet. it would just be this one aud tiny little piece -- odd tiny little piece of the internet ecosystem that would be subject to potentially very confusing rules. what consumers want, i think, and expect is to have choices about how their information is used. to have clear, transparent notice about information practices and to have an easy way to opt out of practices that they don't want to see being done with their data. but moving to an opt-in privacy rule, which is effectively what john's advocating for, is really quite different. if you think about what happens with your health information, for example, when you go to a doctor, you have to sign a

form, a privacy form, every single time you go to a different doctor. and effectively that's what he would hab ing with -- happening with internet ac -- that's what would be happening with internet access. i think under the proposal, i'm curious what you and the other privacy groups -- john: i think that's what we're essentially suggesting. we think that with the i.s.p.'s, that indeed, before they can use the information for purposes other than providing the service, that it should be an opt-in sort of situation. that's part of the problem right now with the internet. you talk about all these self-regulatory regimes and so on and they're based on the so-called notice and choice model. where they explained it in the privacy policy. and people say, ok, that's fine. that doesn't work. because the fact of the matterer, when was the last

time anybody read a privacy policy? except maybe you because you're a lawyer who writes them and you get paid by the word to write them. jim: i never get paid by the word. i also read them as a consumer. john: i was going to say. my standard line is they read like they're written by lawyers who are paid by the word to obfuscate situations. jim: we worked together. john: yes, we did. i agree. it was fun. peter: right now we're in the last year of an administration. right now the f.c.c. is working at approving or just a proposal, right? howard: what's the likelihood that they're going to be able to get -- put out the notice rulemaking and get back all the comments they need to get back and still get a final rule and get that in place by the end of this administration? john: i think it will be very interesting to see if they can get that done.

i think it's important that they do the notice of public rulemaking as soon as they possibly can. .nd i would expect quite soon and that, if nothing else, raises all the questions and gets a record going where people can put in their various views and various concerns. and if they can come back fast enough with a new rule, that would be greet -- great. but can also serve as a foundation for what goes on with the next administration. jim: there's also a contingency here which is that the underlying net neutrality order, which created this particular problem, it solved other problems, but if created this regulatory gap, may not be upheld in its entirety. so there's a decent chance that wireless providers will be in the end, the d.c. circuit court of appeals is ree viewing a challenge to that order and

there's a pretty good chance that wireless providers may be ruled to be outside of the net neutrality order. and if that's the case, then we would see an even more fragmented potential rule and preferably a fair amount of confusion that might slow down this rulemaking. so, because we're on somewhat uncertain legal grounds, the -- with the net neutrality order itself, we can't exclude a surprise coming from the d.c. circuit court of appeals and further narrowing the scope of this, all of a sudden you would see the, for wireless providers, you would see the f.t.c. get jurisdiction again in midstream and it's possible that there will be litigation on this underlying regulatory fact that's triggered this rulemaking procedure. jim: the whole thing could be

thrown out. it is being challenged -- john: the whole thing could be thrown out. it is being challenged. peter: what does this conversation mean to folks at home? why is it important? john: i think it's important because if it goes through the way, many of us in the privacy community would hope that it goes through, i think it will mean consumers will have more choice and control over the data that is gathered about them. and i think that's an important thing in this world. i think most people want that. if you look at various polls that have been taken, there's great concern in the united states by the average person about their privacy on the internet. jim: i think what this means really is whether consumers are going to be asked to opt-in when they sign up for internet service or in the middle of a service contract. that, like ething

the health care privacy release that you sign, i think consumers are going to be readyier to sign onto that. i actually think that it's better to have very clear notices to consumers and then ready control where consumers can go and choose to opt out consciously of different types of services. what john's advocating or -- use of their da at it. what john's veekt something a default rule where a consumer needs to, first of all, will be asked and needs to check the release so that their information can be used. i don't think that actually brings the same degree of thought as very clear short notices and ready consumer controls. you've seen google, comcast, a number of companies move to providing this sort of consumer control over uses of consumer data. and i think it gets you to much the same place and in some ways to a better place. john: i would want to have clearer explanations of what it

is that they want to do with your data before you opt in to give permission. i think it ought to be an opt-in, you think it ought to be an opt-out, i guess. jim: that's probably where we are. howard: you both talked about being a part of a process on privacy. would it make sense for everybody, just to get everybody in the room, the consumer advocates and the public interest groups and the i.s.p.'s, and have a big discussion about this and maybe there could be an agreement on rules and that would obviate the need for the f.c.c. to impose regulations? jim: i think actually that that probably would not work. but i'll -- john: i would agree with you it would not work. i think we've proved that. jim: i'll give you an example. john and i tried to work and i devoted a lot of time and a ort to a process where, a, set of short form notice guidelines can be developed so consumers could make a choice

about whether to use a mobile app before downloading it. and what i found in the process was that a number of the privacy advocates, you were working with them, really didn't want to tackle just that problem. and didn't want dosh i don't think really were that interested in this effort being sort of a broad consensus agreement. there were other things they wanted. it was a negotiation. on the other side, i found that the business community was concerned about being very prescriptive. in the end, a code was put forward and apple, blackberry, google, have all moved to do slightly different types of short form notice. in the end, i think that that gets consumers, and to require that before apps can be downloaded, that gets consumers, amazon's done the same thing, that gets consumers to a place of receiving short form notice, but maybe not in the exact way that was agreed to, it was on the face of the

code. but it got to the same place. on the other hand, i found that the consumer advocates didn't really want to have a cro mice. because they want opt-in privacy rules. in different places. and so they wanted to push for broader, probably addressing that. it becomes much harder to come up with deals that are very -- on very broad questions. it's easier on narrower questions. this took about a year. but i think that the process that that would take, to yield an agreement on the whole universe, would be feasible. but it would take several years. and i don't think that regulators are going to wait for that. john: i think that the multistakeholder process, as they call it, may sound good, but i think that in order to really get something done, i think you need to have a formal rulemaking. and that's what this particular

thing that's coming up will be presumably. then there's a big difference between a bunch of people sitting around a room, all the various vested and competing interests trying to come up with something and sort of agreeing, i think a formal rulemaking is a much better way to go. i think our experience showed that. jim: i don't think that's always true. but i think in this situation it's what's going to happen. and given the limited amount of time left in this administration, i don't see a sort of mediated effort to come up with this in the short period of time. howard: are we going it see a big fight on the f.c.c. about this? it looks like things are breaking down like they did with net neutrality, with the republicans on the commission very opposed to some of these rules and the commission majority really wanting to move forward. so do you think -- do you see this sort of mirroring the net

neutrality battle once it gets before the commission? jim: i think this is a little bit more complicated an issue from a public policy perspective. there's a very strong argument that for the f.c.c. to move forward, doing something different than the f.t.c. has done, would be arbitrary. there's a very strong argument also that internet access providers who now are absolutely required to carry all traffic should not be able to do things that thousand of other players in the internet ecosystem are doing regard to advertising for their broadband services. over their broadband services. i think there also are legal questions here that are pretty complicated, if indeed the net neutrality rule is struck down as to wireless providers. and all those things may create more, i think a more supple

political alignment at the f.c.c. and i'm hopeful will work toward finding solutions that really are practical, consistent and clear to consumers. and based largely on the f.t.c. framework. i'm not sure that that's what will happen. but that was the framework that applied previously. the f.c.c. could then enforce it with much stronger penalties. the f.c.c.'s been very aggressive in enforcing lately. one again can question whether that's arbitrary because other entities are not subject to that. but whatever final set of rules would result would be enforced, i think, vigorously and there's no question about that in light of the recent enforcement record at the f.c.c. so there is, i think, a middle way here. and i'm hopeful that the commissioners, when they really think about this and look broadly at the internet advertising market, which, again, the i.s.p.'s are tiny players in, they'll decide that doing something that's closer

to the f.t.c. framework makes more sense. peter: john, you get the final word today. john: i agree that it's a complex issue. i'm not sure that it would play out exactly the same way. we get a better of sense of that -- better sense of that in a few weeks, i think, when the rulemaking is open and we start to see the comments come in. it is a complex issue. peter: john simpson, former journalist, is with consumer watchdog, where he's the privacy project director. jim halpert is a lawyer with d.l.a. piper. covers privacy and cybersecurity matters. and howard buskirk is executive senior editor of communications daily. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or atellite provider.

>> president obama and the first lady welcomes canadian prime minister justin trudeau and his wife to the white house this week. it was the first official visit by a canadian leader in nearly 20 years. a state dinner was held in honor of the occasion. and included a toast from both president and prime minister. this is 20 minutes. president obama: tonight history comes full circle. 44 years ago, president nixon made a visit to ottawa. the prime d by minister trudeau. [applause] at a private dinner there was a toast. tonight we'll dispense with the formalities, president nixon said. i'd like to propose a toast to the future of the prime

minister of canada, justin pierre trudeau. he was four months at the time -- 4 months at the time. [laughter] all these years later, the prediction has come to pass. mr. prime minister, after today, i think it's fair to say that here in america, you may well be the most popular canadian named justin. [laughter] possibly. [applause] i said this morning that americans and canadians are family. and tonight i want to recognize two people who mean so much to e and michelle and our family, first of all, my wonderful brother-in-law, originally from burlington, ontario, conrad. hey, conrad. [applause]

this is actually an interesting story, though, that i was not aware of. conrad indicated to me when we saw each other this afternoon that part of the reason his immigrate to e to canada was because of policies adopted by justin's father. and so, had that not happen, he might not have met my sister, in which case my lovely nieces might not have been born. this is yet one more debt that we owe the people of canada. [laughter] in addition, a true friend and a member of my team who has been with me every step of the way, he's from toronto and victoria, and also a frequent golf partner, marvin nicholson. [applause] so as you can see, they've

nfiltrated all of our ranks. before i ever became president, when we celebrated my sister and conrad's marriage, michelle and i took our daughters to canada. nd we went to burlington and this is always -- missisogwa. then we went to toronto and niagara falls. [laughter] i can do that. and everywhere we went, the canadian people made us feel right at home. tonight, we want our canadian friends to feel at home. so this is not a dinner, it's supper. we thought of serving up some poutin. was going to bring -- and we'd finish off the night with a double-double. but i draw the line at getting

milk out of a bag. this, we americans do not understand. we do, however, have a little canadian whiskey. that we do understand. this visit has been a celebration of the values that we share. we as a people are committed to the principles of equality and opportunity the idea that if you , work hard and play by the rules, you can make it if you try, no matter what the circumstances of your birth in both of our countries. and we see this in our current presidential campaign. after all, where else would a boy born in calgary grow up to run for president of the united states? [laughter] [applause] president obama: w e