and we'll start with mr. hyman. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the video privacy protection act. my name is david hyman i have served with netflix since 2002. \s >> while it's early in the innovation process, we've seen strong consumer application with more than half a million subscribers outside of the united states connected with facebook. we have not elected to offer our facebook application base of ambiguities in the privacy protection act. unlike most federal privacy statutes, it could be read to offer explicit consent to authorize disclosure on information that they so desire to share. the friction places a drag on social innovation that is not present in any other median, including music, books, and articles. recognizing this, the house recently passed by partisan bill hr-2471 that clarifies the ability to leave the opt-in standard for privacy undisturbed. we believe this approach is workable and consistent with our members' expectations and desires. the bppa singles out one kind of dat

. >> thank you, mr. hyman. by the way, your complete written testimony will be made part of the record. professor mcgovern? >> thank you. thank you. chairman franken, members of the subcommittee and staff, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. my name is william mcgeve aran. i specialize on intellectual property law. i consider a model for privacy legislation i myself use social media and those recommendations heavily but the potential problems are serious, too. in one article i write that the key is to getting consent. not by mistake. if we have too many accidental disclosures, we undermine personal matters and the accuracy of the recommendations, the fact that our friend really wants us to see this movie rather than passively letting us know that he saw it and didn't like it very much. the bppa is going to emphasize that consent. first, the importance, second, that it's not able to keep up with technology and finally, the problems with hr-4271. in my view, the greatest view is the video of the enac

in, then i really don't see how it's the business of congress to dictate and i'll leave this to mr. hyman but there are some devices that someone can access netflix through where you can't have that button and there is a rub and the argument isn't simply that we're going to take away somebody's right to share. and it's not being a big brother. i'll go back. i believe the decision is between protecting privacy and promoting commerce and i think we ought to figure out how to do both. >> but i get back to my fundamental point, the privacy is and has all along been giving people the choice to control their information and who sees it and how it's disclosed. >> so -- so there's no limitation to that choice if i get to make that choice each time. you you're still giving them the choice. actually, we had reference to the testimony that some people believe the ability to use spotify each time. isn't that true? >> but the point is, was it not your inference that maybe you think people ought to be making decisions on that as well? >> that's right. the same thing. you play a play button for a song a

in, then i really don't see how it's the business of congress to dictate and i'll leave this to mr. hyman but there are some devices that someone can access netflix through where you can't have that button and there is a rub and the argument isn't simply that we're going to take away somebody's right to share. >> the paint is, there is a rub. there is a rub. and the argument isn't simply that we're going to take away somebody's right to share. and it's not being a big brother. i'll go back. i believe the decision is between protecting privacy and promoting commerce. and i this we ought to be able to figure how to do both. >> my fundamental point. privacy is and has all along been giving people the choice to control their information, and who sees it and how it's disclosed. >> so -- so there's no limitation to that choice, if i get to make that choice each time. you still are giving them the choice. actually had reference to the testimony that some think that the ability ought to have a choice each time. is that not true? did i not get that inference from your statement? mr. -- >> no. not

think we -- unless anyone wants to respond to a couple of observations i have here, because i think, mr. hyman, you said that it wouldn't be buried in the terms of agreement. the ability to opt -- we don't know that. this piece of legislation doesn't say at all how opting out would work. >> actually, under 2471 there's a specific provision added in amendments, the actual agreement to share, has to be separate and distinct from other legal -- >> not to opt out of the agreement. >> the opt out is not. >> yeah. that's the point. you said that that wouldn't be buried in the terms of agreement, and you talked about yourself, about how this is voluntary. and you're uncomfortable with that being law. this is voluntary. because netflix does what do you in europe, but no other company would have to do it. so i think that you underscore the point that the ranking member was making, which is the -- it could be incredibly difficult to find out how to opt out of this once you've agre agreed -- once you're sharing everything. i see professor mcgeveren nodding his head. any thoughts on that? >> i'm agreeing.