on cybersecurity matters. if you set aside the data privacy issues, then i think you find that we're almost in complete lockstep on most of the key issues. and also as francois, i think, very well teed up if for you at the end of his comments that we both look ahead and see a number of very significant coming debates, debates that have already begun but that are going to be very active in the year ahead at the u.n. on things such as the group of governmental experts looking at norms for state behavior in cyberspace at the u.n.'s international telecommunication union world conference on information technology that's going to take place in dubai this december looking at revising its treaty document and how cyber issues can or should play in that document. and i think it's very encouraging certainly from a u.s. government policy perspective to know that we have in the e.u. such a strong partner on these very high-level policy debates and challenges that we face ahead. what i'd like to do is just spend a few minut

. >> this week on "the communicators," the white house cybersecurity coordinator, howard schmidt, talks about attempted cyber attacks against the u.s. and what the administration wants to do better to protect the nation from cyber threats. >> howard schmidt, what's your responsibilities at the white house? >> guest: i'm special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator, and what that means is when we look at the broad issue of security around technology, everything from around consumers up to and including nation-states, my role is to coordinate this across the government and make sure we're working with the private sector and international partners. >> host: from that perch, how do you view the threat of cyber attack? >> guest: it varies from different sectors and levels of people. for example, when we look at state versus nation-states, there's an increasing threats from some countries around the world that basically see this as advantage they're looking to gain. add the other end of the spectrum, we start looking at end users, credit card fraud, identity theft. as we m

there's a bill pending to try to make our nation safer from the cybersecurity threat. i'm trying to look at this through the prism of our individual rights of privacy as individuals and the basic liberties and values that we share. can you tell me in the brief time remaining here, do you feel that the cybersecurity legislation proposed by the administration compromises any of the rights of privacy that individuals have customarily enjoyed in this country under wire tap statutes and other, i could go through the specifics here, other legislation, or are we changing the standard when it comes to cybersecurity? in terms of the disclosures of any individuals' e-mails or texts in the name of security? >> it does not change the standards by which the government can obtain information relating to an investigation, let me put it that way. and while i'm somewhat familiar with the administration's proposal, i'm not thoroughly familiar. i do not think from what little i know that it changes that dynamic at all. i will say the only way to prevent a cyberattack, a substantial cyber

sharing and protection act better known as system point of system is theoretically to promote cybersecurity by giving corporations and the government the power to share the personal information of online users amongst each other long as those users might be engaging in cyber threats and or sister book corporations are even immune from privacy breach lawsuits and the government doesn't need a warrant to collect your information. but here's the biggest problem is the definition of what a cyber threat might be is really really broad meaning corporations have a pretty large umbrella under which they can share your personal information with each other and with the government it could lead to not just hackers or cyber terrorists being targeted but also file sharers bloggers and you if you were to write a really really angry e-mail some free internet advocates are saying that cisco's not only worse than sopa it's also the patriot act of the internet here's internet activist aaron swartz speaking r.c. last weekend's a sprint. so what it is is that sort of a patriot act for the internet that allows

so many responded to our call with it transatlantic cybersecurity meeting. i also like to thank the true transatlantic private stakeholder who made this possible with a great to support and the commission to come here going over the land tick does take a lot of time and it is appreciated to have this opportunity also in particular the estonian and a german embassy who have ben supportive also european parliament's that was tremendously helpful also kristin for a man who needs of introduction dr. kissinger's says it is true i do not need one but i like a good one to commissioner malmstrom and secretary 89. we could not be delighted to have two very important and powerful voices. we are happy to welcome to 14 the has the responsibility of migration policy and police cooperation and border control. prior to this commissioner malmstrom was the swedish minister with e.u. affairs with preparation for implementation of the lisbon treaty but she knows brussels extremely well serving in the parliament 1999 through 2006 while all of the of foreign affairs and constitu

privacy in the cybersecurity arena should be the default, not the exception.legal immunity to corporations that share information should be the exception, not the rule, and void privacy protections or contracts are disregarded. the congress and the public must have the ability to know how any cybersecurity program that's established is to be implemented. that means routine public and unclassified reports and hearings to examine whether there are any unintended privacy or civil liberty impacts caused by the program. no secret law, mr. president. bad internet policy is increasingly premised on false choices. now, earlier this year during the consideration of the protect i.p. act and the stop online priersy act, the congress was told again it had a false choice. the congress was told it either could protect intellectual property or it could protect the integrity of the internet. this was a false choice, i and others said so at the time, because achieving one should not and does not require sacrificing the other. now, mr. president, the congress is being asked onc

and chinese defense cheap say they'll cooperate on cybersecurity an area of confliction in the past. they met at the pentagon on monday. they say working together on cyber-issues and promoting military exchanges are necessary to insure both countries safety. >> we believe our military to military dialogue is critical to insuring that we avoid dangerous misunderstandings and misperceptions that could lead to crisis. >> the agreement to cybersecurity marks a step in a new direction for the two nations. washington has in the past accused china of being the primary source of attacks on u.s. targets. >>> human rights in china are again in the spotlight. the latest incident sentence on activest chen geng cheng. he escape d and is in a hospita. a deal was reached after days of tense negotiations between the u.s. and chinese officials. today, we look at how the two major powers negotiated a diplomatic minefield. >> a blind manscapes house arrest and the crisis meetings begins. m civil rights actishivist chen slipped past his guards april 22nd and sought asylum at the embassy. he was against

to meet the keep of the european cybersecurity strategy is about coordination. everybody knows what has to be done. the problem is the internet is a clue it issued an has to do barron much with coordination. we need to find the appropriate method to make it. i would briefly like to go into what is expected and how i would see the developments in terms of cybersecurity in the next few months in the european union. i hope this is not always wishful thinking, but there are issues that i see developing. first, the mere concept of critical infrastructure/ -- . according to the european directive, only energy and transportation. ict is not considered to be a critical infrastructure. food and water supply, i made the parallel with the u.s. and understanding. we have to be clear with what we target and what are the systems we would consider to be critical. this understanding has to be enlarged. second, when we speak about strategy, it has to allow innovation, free flow of information, privacy, and resiliency of the network. some will say this is something that cannot be

and then inform on cybersecurity.several live event to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network. the subcommittee on monetary policy should bure

we are going to talk about it being such a cybersecurity. have all the resources you need to discrimination against a cyberattack within reason? >> we need additional resources. we are reprioritizing, reorganizing to address labor. >> what is the risk of the nation as a cyberattack in the next decade? >> substantial. >> which you do me a favor and politely and appropriately right down the list of needs and get them to me and i'll spread them to my colleagues? >> will do it. >> i appreciate the fbi in many ways. >> okay. do you believe we are in a war against terrorism? is the war on terror an appropriate name to define the time at which we live and? >> yes. >> okay. i do too. not the crime on terror. the war on terror. i believe that article iii courts have a place in prosecuting terrorists. you agree that? >> do you believe military can have a place in prosecuting terrorists? >> yes. >> do you agree with that? >> just say yes. i'm not trying to trick you. >> is the homegrown terrorist threat growing or lessening? >> growing. >> do you consi

we are going to talk about things regarding cybersecurity.ou have all the resources you need to defend the nation against a cyberattack? >> within reason. >> we need additional resources. we are reprioritizing and reorganizing to address cyber. >> what is the risk to the nation of a cyberattack in the next decade? >> substantial. >> would you do me a favor and quietly and write down appropriately the list of needs and i will spread them to my colleagues. >> i have done it and i will do it. >> i really appreciate the fbi in many ways. okay. do you believe that we are in a war against terrorism? >> is the war on terrorism an appropriate name to define the time in which we live and? >> yes. >> okay. i do too. it is not crime on terror, it is war on terror. i believe that article three has a place in terrorism do you believe that? >> yes. >> do you believe that military prosecuting has a place? >> yes. >> u.s. citizens are not eligible for military positions, do you agree for that? >> yes. >> i'm not trying to trick you. [laughter] >> i know i kn

that is, privacy and cybersecurity by the congress. yes or no. >> it's unwise for us to get too far in front of the overall consensus. >> you find that to be a bit rushing thins. is that right? >> i now can't recall if this should be a yes or a no, but it would be a bad idea. >> i don't like to do that, but we have a lot of ground to cover. commissioner. >> unwise. >> now, again to both of our witnesses, i understand that some of the countries like russia and china believe that, quote, policy authority for internet-related public issues is the sovereign rights of states and not multistakeholders. is that correct? yes or no. >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner? >> that's their position? is that the question? >> yes. is that their -- >> as i understand their position, yes. >> do you agree with that position? >> no, we don't. >> no. >> ambassador? now, in your collective opinion, is it wise to maintain international multistakeholder regulatory process that more closely resembles the administrative procedure act model that we use in th

to over so you can imagine if individual users tried to sue the government over misuse of their cybersecurity information it's just an endless rabbit hole and then what about what we're hearing now which is that the pentagon had a pilot program that they have just recently decided it's going to be permanent where it was private defense companies were sharing information with the government and the white house said go ahead and make it permanent which is interesting because the white house has come out against this because they're supposedly concerned about privacy concerns and so it becomes a whole tangled mess but it pretty much sounds like maybe you can you know going to argue for the audience here like we don't even need any of these bills to be passed because they're doing it anyway. yeah it's exactly what they're doing this program was expanded to over a thousand companies it was just announced the other day and they involve defense contractors but they also apparently involve internet service providers and at least in this program the information is only going one way so the government

with cisco you know it's not necessary the same kind of internet legislation is it focuses on cybersecurity as opposed to copyright infringement but it's still detrimental to the future of share that you think people americans take for granted the internet freedoms that we haven't. but i think it's sooner or later they're going to actually wake up i know some people already are but when when those freedoms aren't there anymore they're going to have to there's going to be no other choice you know i met a lot of hacktivists who have fled america and gone to other countries because they can do what they want to do they're not out there spreading child pornography and. you know maybe breaking down the walls of government websites and infiltrating services like that they're just trying to do what they want to do in these sometimes you things are legal you know the are right but because the government keeps fighting regulations to impose over every single part of the internet what you can and can't do with a keyboard in a mouse is changing every single day and as you just mentioned andrew there w

act in the house that they've been able to use cybersecurity as a framework to get around existing privacy laws to do the kind of things that would normally be prohibited but could be very lucrative and profitable for these companies and so there's a question of whether this is you know yet another government back door and the rich and private corporations sometimes it just all depends on how you look at it while some are celebrating this relationship other people like you rightfully so are expressing skepticism about these too close for comfort relationships between private entities between private businesses and the government aaron swartz founder and executive director of demand progress well it's time to check in with our web team and see what they're working on our g. web producer angie blake is in the newsroom to tell us what he's got cooking all right and you're talking a they're pretty hard in that doing well thank you and what i say here we've got the stories for you on here some stories i would love to hear first we have a legend member of the have to this collective anonymous ha

to me the same is true in the cybersecurity areas. the internet is an english-speaking world, a lot not exclusively, and it's being used by people with many different values and many different intentions. and so i think part of our recommendation in the task force to focus on this is to try to understand those people who are speaking english using the internet and have intentions that are very different than the ones we associate with simply sharing more information. >> thank you. dr. davidson, your testimony notes that there is a general lack of knowledge of how to develop and implement language training from early childhood, and you recommended using the k through 12 flagship model to build a pipeline of proficient language speakers. what key elements from this program can be emulated by schools across the nation? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for that question. i think the lessons of flagship are that best practices are out there in the field. flagship did not sort of create a bunch of mystical new ways of learning language, but rath

an international proposal to give the united nations more control over the internet including cybersecurity and domain names. he opposes the plan saying that economic and political progress everywhere would grind to a halt. this afternoon at 4:00 eastern, a house subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing to examine the department of veterans fairs purchasing practices of prosthetics. according to the inspector general, the supply costs have increased by 80% over the past four years. in large part due to excess supply. again, that's live today at 49 p.m. eastern. all this week in primetime here on c-span3, we're featuring american history tv with a look tonight at america's civil rights policy. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we'll hear from historians, civil rights leaders and former presidential administration officials as they discuss the changes in policy from fdr to today. american history in primetime all this week on c-span3. last friday, vice president joe biden spoke to survivors of fallen military members. he recounted the difficulty of dealing with the death of his wife and daug

including cybersecurity and domain names. commissioner mcdowell opposes the plan saying that economic and political progress every would grind to a halt. this afternoon at 49:00 eastern, a house subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing to examine the department of veterans fairs purchasing practices of prosthetics. according to the department's inspector general, the va's prosthetic supply costs have increased by 80% over the past four years, in large part due to excess supply. again, that's live today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. and switching over to politics, mitt romney made news last night wenning the texas republican presidential primary. the delegates he picked up helped him surpass the 1144 delegates needed to secure his party's nomination. former massachusetts governor will not gain the official nomination until august's republican national convention in tampa, florida. and in wisconsin on friday, republican governor scott walker and milwaukee democratic mayor tom barrett faced off in a debate ahead of that state's june

cybersecurity steal secrets by criminals to keep those secrets to our advantage their organizations like anonymous just like wikileaks to expose them i don't think it will clean up its act with that regard. >> the business of secrecy is interesting. every part of your account is accurate. i regret to relive in the world to be described this way secrecy is the case everything is secret than nothing is secret. some things have been been revealed that should not have been. of "new york times" exposed the government was doing nothing illegal but something very effective. when exposed, and the efficacy disappeared. it is profoundly eight unpatriotic act. when challenged comment to say it was there. like mount everest. i found that appalling. appalling because it showed no respect for the need for secrecy under certain circumstances but if the government makes everything secret to kumbaya the notion of discretion falls away. no doubt that has happened. >> with the carter administration i would see the morning briefing book. i would play a game how many of the things that i read top top-secret

there is a bill pending to try to make our nation safer from the cybersecurity threat. i am trying to look at this through the prism of our individual rights of privacy as individuals and the basic liberties and values that we share. can you tell me in the brief time remaining here, do you feel that the cybersecurity legislation, proposed by the administration compromises any of the rights of privacy that individuals have customaryly enjoyed in this country under wiretap statutes and -- i could go through the specifics here -- other legislation? are we changing the standard when it comes to cybersecurity in terms of the disclosures of any individuals, emails or text in the name of security? >> i do not -- it does not change the standards by which government can obtain information relating to an investigation. let me just put it that way. while i am somewhat familiar the administration's proposal, i am not thoroughly familiar. i do not think from what little i know that it changes that dynamic at all. i will say though, the only way to prevent a cyberattack, a substantia

their concept of information security is what we would call cybersecurity, a physical protection of their networks, but it goes beyond that to address content that they regard as unwanted. and i think, as much as anything else, that the base motivations that russia and china have involve regime stability, regime preservation, which for them involves preventing unwanted content from being made widely available in their countries. >> and commissioner mcdowell, how do you view this threat from china and russia and others that seek to retain regime stability and can only really pursue it through an international control of the internet? >> for those countries that are offering such ideas that are authoritarian, like the ones you cite, i don't think it's too stark to say their vision of the internet is to have a tyrannical walled garden. but i think there are a variety of motivations throughout the 193 member states who might find a number of things appealing, might be purely economic, state owned, telephone companies charging web destinations on a per-click basis. but for the chinas and russi

we'll talk about cybersecurity. do you have the resources you need right now to defend the country against a cyberattack, within reason? >> we need additional resources. we're repriortizing, reorganizing to address cyber. we have -- >> what's the risk to the nation of a cyberattack in the next decade? >> substantial. >> so would you do me a favor and just quietly and appropriately write down that list of needs and get them to me and i'll spread them to my colleagues. >> have done it, will do it. >> and appreciate the fbi in many ways. okay, do you believe that we're in a war against terrorism? is the war on terror an appropriate name to define the time in which we live in? >> yes. >> okay. i do, too. it's not the crime on terror. it's the war on terror. i believe that article three courts have a place in prosecuting terrorists. do you believe that? >> yes. >> do you believe military commissions could have a place? >> yes. >> u.s. citizens are not eligible for mill tear commissions? >> yes. not trying to trick you. >

campaigns came from companies supporting this everyone from microsoft and facebook to private cybersecurity firms in washington d.c. in arlington virginia credible beyond the buyout of congress there's an entirely separate government as it were operating in the name of the american legislative exchange council and they literally get together. lobbyists and state representatives fifty fifty sitting side by side and write legislation and vote up deciding whether or not. they're going to introduce it in alex is at least now out of the shadows in part because of your good efforts and i'm curious what's the latest on the effort to expose alec and and and also to get democrats out of alec so they can stop hiding behind the rubric of bipartisan organization you know so you know again alec is probably the most powerful corporate front group that you know your viewers and never heard of because basically what it does it's an organization ninety eight percent funded by big corporations and it passes off legislation to legislators and state legislatures all over the country they pass these bills into

we talk a hot on this program -- a lot on this program about piracy, privacy, cybersecurity, net neutrality, net management, etc. what about you? >> guest: we're, i think realistically we are in the infrastructure business, and can we sell services that are used by a lot of people many hours of the day, and that means we're important, and that means we're regulated. and that's just part of this business. we're regulated at the federal level, at the state level and to some extent at the city level. and that means we have to pay attention to issues that regulators care about in our space. and so, yes, that takes a lot of my time. i think we continually need to explain to both consumers and regulators what we're doing, why we're doing it so that we can tell our story so that when there are issues, they can be dealt with in a context where people understand all of the ins and outs, if i can use that. so i actually spend a lot of my time on this type of stuff. >> host: recently, speaking of regulation and local issues, mayors of several new york cities wrote a letter to the fcc against the cable

and in the middle, you have things from the cybersecurity proposal. you may think of it as freedom of expression, but also just a barrier to the internet functioning throughout the economic benefits and social benefits, cybersecurity, ways of looking at spam, fraud, et cetera. the topics are all understandable. i want to make that clear. there's a reason to be understand. it's just that the mechanisms tend to be very intrusive by government. so i think one of the hopes is to figure out how to meet the concerns come and meet where they are and figure out other ways to get at them. the final 11 i will say has been mentioned by several speakers come including rick at the end coming of the internet is a network of networks. it is handing off traffics between those networks, primarily through handshake informal agreements or commercial agreements and to turn that into the great debate it kind of exchange will create all sorts of distortions of the systems and complexity. i hope it's a good summary. >> yes, thank you, jackie. dick commode matching her boss,

that's cybersecurity. there's a new report out from fema and here is reporting by michael schmidt of "the new york times," it was the report's findings about cybersecurity that appeared to be the most troubling and they continue to drumbeat from the obama administration about the need for congress to pass legislation giving the department of homeland security the authority to regulate computer security for the country's infrastructure. guest: very complicated subject. i think most viewers do understand how vulnerable we are not just in our defense space, not even just in the dot-gov space, the rest of the government, but in the dot-com space, that's what you and i use to communicate with people. and that a lot of the damage a cyberattack could do would be to the private sector, not just communications between corporations and their data on their customers or competition, but the private sector has a lot to do with running our infrastructure in this country, and that can hurt a lot of people if it jams. but

in april 2011, the cybersecurity initiative which provides cyberwar information and advice to the is antenatal published its project cyber don leiby report that assist libyan own abilities to cyber attacks. ironically the report came to light as a result of the hacktivists group reach of a defense contractor served. the report describes several possibilities for cyber attacks against libya. "the new york times" and "washington post" reported the u.s. did consider cyber attacks against libyan air defense systems to clear the way for the nato mission to protect civilians from gadhafi's forces, but the u.s. rejected the use of this capability because of that's about the ability to deploy them in a timely and effective manner. .. own actions in this area includes identifying critical dependencies on national networks and systems of member states and developing minimum cyber defense standards for these national systems especially where they intersect with nato networks. while recognizing the inevitability of cyber attacks, nato policy emphasizes the need to prevent attacks where possible

before joinings us here, he was a league consult to ibm on cybersecurity policy. please join me in welcoming my colleague steve. steve? [applause] good afternoon and welcome to the heritage foundation. we are really glad to have everyone here and this particular subject is a very important one. it -- a year ago the heritage foundation wrote a really fine report on the tragedy that occurred in fukushima. one year later, they've written a new one, which is, again, and excellent analysis on what went on and what we can learn from our friends and allies in japan and how they dealt with the particular dragty. what we're going to do is afternoon is have our first speaker who will be mr. yasuhiko iwasaki from japan. and i will give the full introduction in a second. he will get up and speak to us. he'll be using a translator. for those who have not had that experience with a speaker, it's a learning one. then, we will bring up a panel of three other speakers, who i will introduce at that time, and at the end of their remarks, we will then open it up for q and a. let me t

ahead of this gusev with me is christopher savoie and privacy expert at the center for applied cybersecurity research chris thanks so much for joining us tonight. can you can you clear it up for me and terms of why exactly it is that the report was initially released without all of these black chunks blocked out and you know you wrote a piece about this saying that the f.c.c. deserves to be grilled by congress because they're the ones that released this report but now they're claiming from their spokespeople that was because google didn't want them to put this stuff in because of the sensitive information for their business and so google the f.c.c. you know please keep these details on the rupp's the f.c.c. had to google in the first place to provide it with information and google had sort of said we'll give you the details but you know keeping to yourself what the f.c.c. could have done is waited till they had googles for mission to release the report and then released everything at once instead they sort of release the report into to what's first a heavily redacted report you get a huge am

we're continue to work with lawmakers as well as tech companies to make sure that whatever type of cybersecurity legislation that is passed protects users and also want to say that we're also meeting with various government officials as well start companies. in brazil next week for the rio de janeiro human rights technology conference and these types of meetings are going to be really important to make sure that going forward that we can address cyber security threats as well as protecting users right and lastly i just want to ask you let's say you are successful and privacy advocates are successful in preventing this last legislation from moving forward but you know we saw you there was some people say this is kind of like a. two point zero and this is if this is defeated. they can you expect to see more of a push similar piece of legislation to come before congress. yeah i think that you know as the internet community really wise up and takes the stand you know i don't think that if we defeat one bill that all of a sudden the people are saying attack it up and go home and then there's got alre

companies will share sensitive personal information with the government in the name of protecting cybersecurity facebook has no intention of doing this and it is unrelated to the things that we liked about h.r. thirty five twenty three in the first place the additional information it would provide us about specific cyber threats to our systems and users kaplan also said the facebook of the open to working with lawmakers to draw up better provisions to this bill so you see what they. their facebook technically went from being all of the supporting this will box to entering this weird little grey area here where they have a better chance of trying to appease both sides and like the idea of it all but they're trying to keep their users quiet too and now microsoft has also joined facebook in this gray area over here after being the poster child for supporting system microsoft is back peddled on their stance after they were hounded by the press so their new position is to uphold the security promises made to their customers so it's not a complete reversal but it shows a bit of in decisiveness on the

or the apple's whoever's here is well when it comes to government officials to say nice little cybersecurity bill you got there but you know you should listen to us on some of the technicalities thanks so much for joining us. thank you. i we've got one more break tonight but full time next and shockingly a politician is trying to walk back statements that it's time for happy hour. to a substantial degree and one problem or another socialism has spread the shadow of human regimentation over most of the nations of the earth and the shadow is encroaching upon the front. of the early twenty first century military bases the network of military bases all around the forms of the empire that the united states is trying to build that's astonishing most americans have no idea there are more than a quarter of a million or more than two hundred fifty thousand u.s. troops stationed on these bases all around us. we don't have foreign bases in america we don't have any british base we don't have any korean base we don't have any french bases or you know we just all american bases in our bases of there are

which people pay less attention to and it's a harder problem because you have to worry about it is cybersecurity. the real nightmare story for computer regulation is some seriously destructive infrastructural attack on the internet that takes out some critical -- whether it's the airline network or the electric grid or something of that nature. and that would not only be catastroph niic in its own righ. the idea that computers are largely an unregulated area goes away. >> down here. >> my name is henry nichol from california southern law school. i had just a quick question. a number of you have touched upon this issue of the global marketplace, and i was wondering if you could comment on the creeping danger of harmonizing with foreign law and expanding federal regulation. i speak specifically of recent controversies that relate to european demands that the u.s. adopt a data privacy regime similar to what exists in europe. what is -- is this a danger? what is the magnitude? and how can we reconcile these types of demands from foreign governments that we expand our regulatory regime? >> i got a co

users out there and in the meantime the senate is looking at its own slightly less threatening cybersecurity bill the cyber security act of two thousand and twelve dollars proposed by joe lieberman and i would give homeland security all authority to have a say in private companies network security policies now it certainly has its privacy concerns as well but if this. have taught us anything it's that if the american people actually keep the pressure on they really can get lawmakers and companies maybe even the president to pay attention. now we've been talking a lot about drones lately the cia's expansion of their drone program in yemen the signature strikes or the first international drone summit that was just held here in washington d.c. this past weekend but much of our focus has been on drone use abroad for counterterrorism purposes but let's not forget that the president recently signed a new f.a.a. bill that's going to allow for domestic drone use and the coming years drones are going to be used for commercial purposes by law enforcement for agricultural purposes by media organization

goes far beyond internet security the bill infringes on our privacy includes vague definitions of cybersecurity and grants immunity to companies and government that are too broad and for around information misuse now keep in mind the muzzle is one of those outspoken critics of sopa and pipa and i took part in the blackout last january which helped raise the awareness ultimately stopping that legislation from becoming law and so now we know where muscle is stands we're hoping that this will continue the trend of tech companies actually calling for a new less invasive cyber security bill so it doesn't look like pressure works so keep it on. now yesterday we saw the occupy movement use mayday as a catalyst for another nationwide dave action the turnout wasn't as large as the demonstrations we saw last fall but it was sizable and relatively peaceful in comparison overall there were about sixty six people arrested nationwide yesterday but as often happens most of the media coverage that was given these actions focused on the negatives clashes with police and in some cases vandalism. yesterday may da

goes far beyond internet security the bill infringes on our privacy includes vague definitions of cybersecurity and grants immunities to the companies and governments that are too broad around information mrs i should also say the c.e.o. of cheeseburger put it simply in an interview with pro publica they simply said suspend is so close cousin who works for the cia but i'm wondering david why are more people not coming out against this but already passed like we said in the house last week the senate is working on their version and we're not hearing quite as much criticism of it. well christine the big reason why you're not hearing more criticism is that most americans i talk to don't even know about this bill when you turn on the news at night i mean thankfully archie america is all over this and there are a handful of other networks that are covering it but the vast majority of news networks that americans turn to and even large news websites just are not mentioning system and unfortunately it's already passed the house and i was going to go to a senate vote and you can oppose something you do

privacy law legislation lately and in fact they've been passing legislation like this for the new cybersecurity bill that actually hurts americans privacy so we're really worried that they may not act fast enough for when these drones become prevalent after all there's nine hundred thousand law enforcement agencies in the u.s. and many of them are getting grants from the justice department or department of homeland security to get these drones basically for free and with the dangerous capabilities of them who knows how it could turn out and so what we want to do is focus on local governments because they're the ones that really have oversight over police departments they can pass by an important they can you know have real oversight into how these drones use another great example is what happened last week in shelby county tennessee a similar situation to seattle where they were actually about to buy two drones for their police department and all of a sudden the county commissioner started raising questions they asked them what they were going to be using them for and they wanted to answer to p