ine as her running mate in miami. later, our look at past conventions continues this weekend with the nomination of massachusetts senator john f. kennedy in 1960. >> edith ramirez is the chair of the federal trade commission, our guest this week on the "communicators."." thanks for being back on the "communicators," we appreciate it. what is the charge of the f.t.c.? what's the mission? ms. ramirez: i'm delighted to be here with you, peter. the commission has a dual mandate to protect consumers and enforce the competition laws, enforcing the antitrust laws. that's the dual mandate so we look very carefully at making sure that the the way that consumers interact with the marketplace, that's one of the key focuses of the agency and then we're also trying to ensure there's vigorous competition in the marketplace, as well.

>> how does that intersect with telecommunications, the topic of the "churnts"? ms. ramirez: i would say one of the most important issues we've had to tackle more broadly is simply how consumers are interacting with technology with all the innovation we're seeing today, and also how technology has impacted consumers' daily lives so as an agency we need to stay to top of technological developments and that we really understand how consumers are engaging with the marketplace but again, as informed by the impact of technology. >> what's the interface with the federal communications commission and those issues? ms. ramirez: there is overlap with the federal communications commission. among them, one of the areas where we've overlapped for some time is to do with enforcement of the no-call rule in the mayor of telemarketing so there's been

a great deal of cooperation in that area. more recently, in issues that relate to privacy and data security that's another overlap, particularly in light of the division by the commission to reclassify broad band. the so we work very well with them as we do with a number of other federal agencies, for instance we also interface and chair jurisdiction with the department of justice when it comes to competition. there's a lot of -- there are many areas, because of the very broad jurisdiction the federal trade commission has, where we intersect with sister federal agencies. >> we're going to talk about some of those issues. we're joined by hansa shaban of buzzfeed. >> i would like to start by asking, what is the commission's role in protecting american consumer's privacy? ms. ramirez: we have i think a

vital role. the core mandate of the agency and the way we go about protecting consumers is our charge is to ensure that companies don't engage in unfair or deceptive practices and so we have developed i think a very important jurisprudence using that authority in the area of privacy. by way of example, today, many companies have sometimes made certain promises with regard to their privacy practices or data practices more generally and it's up to us to make sure that companies actually fulfill the promises they're making. so i'm going to give you one example. the -- you may be familiar with a popular mobile app known as snapchat. we brought a case against snapchat a couple of years ago because they had made a promise that their so-called snaps

their pictures or messages, would be ephemeral, that they would disappear forever. in fact, we looked into that and learned that those snapchats were not, in fact, disappearing forever and therefore we brought an action because they had made a promise they weren't fulfilling. that's one example of many different types of actions we have brought to ensure companies who make particular promises about how they're using consumer information, what their overall data practices actually comply with those. similarly, we've used our unfairness authority for example to ensure that companies provide reasonable security measures to protect consumer information. let me say that i think one of the biggest challenges that we face today is the protection of

data. as we all know we're seeing massive collection of data through all of the innovation that we see. so the fact that the cost of storing data has plummeted and the fact that companies now have very significant analytic power to use and find beneficial uses of the data being accumulated that also comes with certain risks. so at the same time that we see innovation in really substantial benefits to consumers, whether in the area of health where you can potentially have breakthroughs because of the ability to collect information today and analyze it, and you can see other potential industrial uses that just really have powerful gains in efficiency, at the same time, that massive collection and storage of data also creates

risks and one of the things that we've paid very close attention to is analyzing what those risks are and, where appropriate bringing enforcement action, but then more importantly, providing recommendations to companies about how they can deal with those risks. >> do you think most americans understand the amount of data that's collected? and the nature of the data that's collected about them? ms. ramirez: i don't. i think that's one of the most serious issues confronting us today. so much of the data collection taking place happens behind a curtain. it's invisible. largely invisible to consumers. increasingly they understand data is being collected but i don't think they understand necessarily the extent of the data being collected or the fact that a company may decide to share that information with third parties so i think that changes the equation dramatically. let me say that just by way of

example, i think a consumer will certainly understand that if they're wearing a particular fitness device on their wrist the company is gathering -- has information and related data to provide very useful information to the consumer in the function of the device but they may not understand that this company may be sharing that information with a third party and perhaps down the line, what happens if that information is being used to make determinations about what insurance i might get, how much i may need to pay for insurance? what if that information is being used for other determinations. somebody might see, oh, maybe that's useful information a creditor or employer might want. if i have a smart refrigerator, there, again, there's information about that might be revealing. my propensity to grab ice cream

late at night, what impact would that have on other decisions. i don't want to be facetious but some of these decisions can impact areas where companies are making important choices decisions about consumers and we need to be careful about how that process unfolds? host: is a company that perhaps sells a wearable fitness device, do they have the right to provide that information to third parties? do we have the right to opt out of that? ms. ramirez: right now we do not have -- there is no federal legislation in the area. we do have certain legislation that we enforce, we have the fair credit reporting act, for instance, that we enforce, which in certain areas provides protections to consumers and also provides -- has provisions that allows consumers to ensure that there's accurate information so if there's an adverse decision being made on

the basis of a consumer report, the consumer is entitled to learn about that and is entitled to seek to make any corrections if the information that's contained in that consumer report is inaccurate. we are making sure that companies who may be -- who may not have seen themselves as a consumer reporting organization and did not feel they fell within that, that they're now implicating the fdra and we're going to make sure companies are aware of their obligation to make sure consumers get the protections that come with that. at the same time, in the absence of a company making a particular promise about how it's sharing information, there is no general prohibition against chairing with -- sharing with third parties. what we do, if a company is making promises about that, we would seek tone -- to enforce

those. the that is happening. a couple of years ago we issued a report on the data broker industry, the industry that people -- frankly many consumers don't know exists -- but companies that are in the business of dealing in consumer information. these companies are aggregating information from online sources from offline sources available information and purchasing data from companies that might be collecting it in many contexts. they're compiling that information. they're placing -- and let me say they have files on virtually every american consumer and many consumers worldwide. they are then compiling that information and placing labels on it. sometimes it's just based on if you're an enthusiast in hiking

or some other area. sometimes they're also placing labels that really have to do with your socio-economic status and as we learned more about how they do this, some of the labeling can perhaps raise concerns about how that information might be used. in my mind, it's important for there to be more transparency about the data being collected as well as how that information is being used and i feel it's important -- we at the agency feel it's important that consumers have more control over how information is being used. we also highlight that i feel -- that the data that we see, there was a recent study by pew research center that 91% of those surveyed felt they lost control over how their information was being -- what information was being collected and how that information was being used so to me that's not a

good sign. it's not a good sign for the marketplace that you see consumers not having confidence that the marketplace will be adequately safe guarding their information and i think it's important for these issues to be addressed because i think consumers should be able to take advantage of all these great services that are available through the ingenuity of american companies and american inventors so that's an important role we see ourselves playing. >> you mentioned some of the dangers that exist in the widespread data collection. why don't we have a comprehensive privacy law that would protect consumers? ms. ramirez: fortunately congress has -- there have been some bills that congress has considered but at this time they haven't moved forward with anything. what i can tell you is that a majority of us at the commission have recommended that congress enact legislation in this area.

you personally feel it's unquestionably important for there to be just some basic safeguards for consumers that encompass a need for transparency, the need for control, and security i think is another incredibly important area. sadly, we don't even have federal security law here. so to me that's something that we absolutely need to confront and i can tell you that the issue of securing personal information is just incredibly important. i think that's another significant concern. the ntia recently issued a survey indicating that 84% of house holds that use the internet have concerns about privacy and security. of the top concerns, focused on

identity theft and credit and bank fraud. that's very much in line with what we see. we have a database of complaints we gather complaints from consumers. and identity theft is one of the top complaints that we see year after year. so that's an issue that affects millions of americans. the latest statistics date from 2014 from the bureau of justice are that nearly 18 million consumers are impacted, are victims of identity theft. so the more data that's being accumulated, this is something that's just increasing. it's only going to increase more. these are issues that we need to confront and in my mind it's important for there to be legislation in this area because to me, to my mind, given what i see, the data that i see and the experience that we have, enforcers in this area, it's clear that companies are not

doing what they need to and so i think we need to take action. host: go ahead. >> even if we don't see new legislation from congress, is the commission doing enough to end hacking? to protect consumers from data breaches from hacking? ms. ramirez: let me say that i think it's a solution, one agency won't address it. really what you need is you need some industry will be very engaged. you need other -- legislative efforts. it's a complex problem. what i can tell you, i have been focusing on enforcement and talking about enforcement but we also want to make sure that companies understand what their obligation is but also how to go about providing appropriate security and we certainly understand that small and medium sized companies, for instance may feel perhaps overwhelmed and

underresourced to tackle these issues so one thing that we have done, we put out guidance in this area in the last year we have also held events around the country where we've brought together experts who can really talk in a concrete way about the approaches that they use to tackle some of these challenges. so we're doing what we can to make sure that companies become more aware of what they can do to provide appropriate security. but i think it's a complicated issue but i think in my mind certainly one thing that is necessary is some form of legislation but also educational component, making sure that companies have the tools to deal with the issue. host: just to follow-up on the question a little bit does the f.t.c. have enough enforcement tools, if you're seeing flagrant

violations of security? ms. ramirez: i think if there were to be data security legislation, one thing that i think would be beneficial would be to give the agency civil penalty authority in this area because our main authority, we we -- if we can establish there's been harm to a consumer we can seek to get consumer redirect. but in the absence of that we have to rely on injunctive relief which means that a company basically there would be an injunction that would require them to have appropriate security going forward and if they violated the order going forward, then there would be a penalty. but in the first instance, it's conceivable that if we don't have specific details about actual harm that's taken place we wouldn't have any other form of relief other than an injunction and perhaps it may not be a sufficient deterrent so i think it would be useful to

have civil penalty authority and there would be various criteria we would evaluate as to whether to impose civil penalty. host: do you agree with the 91% of americans who feel their information is out of their control? ms. ramirez: i feel that companies are not doing what they should to be open about their data practices and i also feel that they're not offering consumers appropriate choice when it comes to this, in a way that makes it easy for consumers to make decision about what happens with their data. many companies rely on long privacy policies that are filled with legalese, that are difficult to understand, that are opaque. we've advocated that companies use simpler language and in particular these days when people rely so much, for

instance, on mobile devices that they shift to something that is what we call just in time notice meaning that, let's say that i've downloaded a particular app and that app wants to access my geolocation information which is what we consider sensitive information you know, where i'm going, day in, and day out. that i be provided notice that the app seeks to access that information and gives me a choice so i have the ability to say, no, i don't want that. i don't want this app to access that information and those claims of choices, i think are needed and i don't believe that companies generally speaking of providing appropriate control for consumers. i will say that we have certainly seen companies make progress in this area and i'm

pleased about that but i think a lot more work needs to be done to make sure that consumers really do understand what's happening with their information and that an appropriate choice is provided to them. >> when you talk to technology companies in silicon valley about privacy, what's the issue or concern you hear the most? ms. ramirez: i think the general concern is -- concern about placing costs on them that would inhibit their ability to be as innovative as possible and my answer back is i think that consumer protection and innovation can go hand in hand. if consumers aren't confident in, let's say, a particular device collecting information they're not going to purchase that device so i think it's important for consumers, in

order to avail themselves of these terrific products that are out there, it's important for them to make sure that information is secure. let me also just point out that another issue that comes up, it's the more that we use devices, wearable devices, other devices in our homes not only are they collecting just to find more information in what used to be our private space, our homes. these devices are collecting all sorts of information. but in addition to that, it also means that in terms of security the risk of exposure, vulnerability, increases, right, because of the number of devices. we have recently bought a -- did a security action involving a company that made routers and routers, this particular company, asis, basically its router had vulnerabilities and as a result of these

vulnerabilities and also vulnerabilities in their cloud-based storage network, it ended up exposing your router is vulnerable, it exposes your entire home network. so this just goes to show that at the same time that we see all of these wonderful devices that provide added convenience and have the potential to collect information that can then be used for really significant breakthroughs and can be beneficial to society and to consumers, we have to be cognizant of the risks, as well, and make sure that there's actions to deal with those challenges. host: you've referred to two actions that the f.t.c. has taken, the one with snapchat and the asus data security action. have those been resolved? what's the next step? what does it mean when you take an action? ms. ramirez: we tend to resolve most ofous cases through settlements but if need be we

will go to trial if we feel we can't arrive at the settlement we think is appropriate in terms of the public interest. if we think we can't arrive at settlement we will proceed and litigate a matter but i will say most of our cases, particularly in the area of the privacy arena, and data security, have been resolved. we were in the process of litigating a one-day security case the windham action, and during the course of litigation ultimately ended up settling. host: has asus been settled? ms. ramirez: that's right, and snapchat that i mentioned. they are now under an order that requires them not to make any misleading representations about what they're doing. >> one criticism i've heard about the f.t.c.'s enforcement approach is that snapchat is a good champion.

example. so, the policy of snapchat was found to be deceptive and i'm wondering does that mean snapchat is changing its actual policies or just what it lists as its privacy policy? ms. ramirez: we're not here to be representative about what a company does or to do does not but we want to make sure if they're making a promise or representations, and snapchat was trying to differentiate itself based on what they called pro privacy features, if you're doing that, you need to comply with that. make sure that's the case. and it wasn't the case with snapchat. in my mind, companies, it's very clear, i think with looking at the information and the data we have, that consumers do care about privacy, maybe not everyone, but i think there are different levels of -- levels in

terms of how much consumers -- privacy they want and will seek but it's an issue on which i think a company can differentiate itself and speaking also as being part of a competition agency we want to see more and encourage more competition in the area of privacy but of course if you are touting a particular privacy protected feature, you have to make sure your device actually does that. >> earlier this year, the f.c.c. proposed new rules that would limit the kind of data that broadband providers can collect on consumers. i wanted to know what is the f.t.c.'s stance on that proposal? ms. ramirez: generally speaking, i will say that we're pleased to see that the f.c.c. is ensuring that companies under their jurisdiction provide appropriate privacy. the f.t.c. did submit comments. we made suggestions about how we thought they could make their

proposed rules changed in our minds would make their proposed rules even better and in certain respects we felt the rules were not as privacy protective as they should have been and in others we suggested that perhaps more flexibility would be appropriate and might have been more than we would under the framework that we use, they could change their rule. so ultimately, the general approach that we feel should apply particularly this relates to choice mechanisms, we feel that information that is sensitive, health, financial information, or the content of communications that we feel is something where people, if they want to share that, they ought to obtain rather than the default rule that you opt out of that. it's sensitive information that people as a general know would

not expect to be used, shared with a third party. so in our view that's something where you would want a system where somebody would make the selection, yes, you can share that information with a third party. absent that, acting consent, it should not be permitted. but aside from that, if it's general information that might lead a company to advertise to me about the kind of running shoes i might like or other information that would be non-sensitive, non-content related, in that circumstance we think it would be appropriate for consumers who would prefer not to share their non-sensitive information, non-content related information, that an opt-out would be sufficiently protective of consumers so those are the kinds of suggestions we made. we also made a few other suggestions about how to deal with security issues but i think

generally the approach they took is something we're in line with, which is by that i mean they focus on the importance of transparency, they focus on the importance of providing choice to consumers and then also focus on the importance of security. host: we have one minute left. time for one more quick question. >> where do you see the election going in terms of the f.t.c.? host: let's leave it there with the election. what are issues the next f.t.c. will be facing and has it been debilitating to only have three members, rather than the full five? ms. ramirez: right now we are down two commissioners. it's always better to have a full group, full set of five commissioners but at the same time we're working -- we've had

a great group of colleagues and we're working well and i think we're going to continue doing all the great work the agency has been doing up to this point. as far as the election goes, it's been an unusual campaign so far. i'm not going to make any predictions but what i will say is that the work that we do there really is bipartisan consensus. our own commission is comprised bipartisan group of commissioners. so i think the issues we talked about today are ones that will continue to confront the agency and i think you're going to see more in line of what you've been seeingally -- basically an agency that works well and protecting consumers. host: edith ramirez is a native of san clemente, california, graduate of harvard law school, chairman of the federal trade commission. thank you both.

>> thank you. >> c-span, created by america's television cable companies. every minute of the republican and democratic national conventions is brought as a public service by your public or cable satellite provider. virginia senator tim kaine was formally introduced as hillary clinton's running mate at an event today in miami. senator kaine was elected to the senate in 2012. predator that he was governor of virginia and chair of the democratic national committee. businessman comes days before democrats meet in -- his announcement comes days before democrats meet for the national convention in philadelphia. ♪ ain't no river wide enough ♪ ♪ ai'nt