tv Washington Journal News Headlines and Viewer Calls CSPAN April 1, 2017 7:00am-8:01am EDT
talks about challenges of building a wall. contributingn, a editor for wired magazine discusses his article, "can you turn a terrorist back to a citizen? host: good morning. it is saturday, april 1, 2017. a3-hour washington journal i had which will discuss veterans issues, president trump's border wall, and the u.s.. congress that were scheduled to go in effect later this year. with a move that has earned a sharp backlash from the -- from democrats accused of selling the privacy of americans to internet providers. we want to hear your thoughts
about that debate and if you feel your private information is secure when you go online. give us a call. you can also catch up with us on social media. and on facebook, it is facebook.com/c-span. in very good saturday morning to you. you can start calling in now on these issues. we want to remind our viewers where we are on this debate. story in thes this washington post. a landmark online privacy protection -- the first salvo in what is likely to become a significant reworking of the government access in an era of republican eminence. -- service freed and providers of protections provided last year that saough
t to limit what those companies could see. the rules also had required providers to strengthen safeguards for customer data against hackers and the use -- and thieves. was marsha debate blackburn of tennessee. here is what she had to say about the changes. finalized its broadband rules. at that time, they are short us that the rules would provide broadband customers meaningful choice, greater transparency and stronger security protections for their personal information collected by internet service providers. but the reality is much different. there are three specific problems with which the fcc has gone about these rules. unilaterally swiped
jurisdiction from the federal trade commission. has served as our nation's soul online provider for 22 years heard having two privacy cops -- and will end up harming consumers. third, the fcc already has authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis. these broadband privacy rules are unnecessary and just another example of big government overreach. the competitive enterprise institute estimates that federal regulations cost our economy $1.9 trillion in 2015 since president trump took office, republicans have been working diligently to loosen the regulatory environment that is
suffocating hard-working taxpayers. repealnd the vote on the of those rules took place on tuesday with a mostly partyline vote. 15 republicans joining all democrats that voted in the house on tuesday. to oppose that legislation. it now goes to president trump's dusk and as the hell notes, president trump is expected to sign the broadband privacy repeal. nancy pelosi spoke about repeal in her press briefing on thursday as the legislation a way to president trump's signature. here is what she had to say. internet privacy. you should be very scared. each and every one of you. the republicans voted to allow internet service providers to sell your most intimate personal information without your knowledge or your consent. they are doing everything they can to keep president trump's
tax return private. and they are doing everything they can to sell your most personal information. but it is your children's location. your browsing history. withthing that has to do your personalized information and how you engage on the internet. they have had their way with the cra and they will -- we are we are hoping president trump with his valuing of his own privacy with chris -- will respect the privacy of the american people and not sign this terrible, terrible bill. host: and some of the reaction from democrats this week. here is senate minority leader chuck schumer with a tweet on wednesday -- terrible for the american people. great for big business.
it is clear where the republican loyalties lie. -- congressman adam schiff if you search for this twitter account with your brother, they want your provider to be able to sell that information and your privacy. we will talk about this debate for the first hour on the washington journal. we want to hear from do our viewers. about can -- about changes to the privacy rules. we will also be looking for your tweets and facebook as well. we will start with mike. good morning. caller: i would propose that marsha blackburn stand up in front of a town hall meeting of her constituents and ask them how many of them have no problem with an internet service provider selling their private
information to anybody without their consent and i would suspect that all of her constituents would agree that is a bad idea. i cannot imagine this going through and anyone with any sense agreeing with it. secondly, i would think, i would think if it is a "duplicative law" that causes absolutely no additional cost, if it in fact is duplicative which it she said in some of the other republicans are saying. host: did you watch any debate on the floor about this repeal? caller: yes i did. it is unfortunate because it is our -- it is always cast titers and because -- it is always cast artisan because it is such
commonsense issue. i don't think anyone would agree to have their private information sold. host: is the system in place now working? caller: i think it works better regulationving any which prohibits it. it certainly works better than that. now, there are some that probably do not obey the law or the regulation but i think it works better than having absolutely nothing. rules have yet to go into affect. they are scheduled to go into effect later this year. they will be pulled back before they go into affect. that is what we are talking about, your concerns to the internet privacy rules and whether you feel safe with your information online. tim is an independent from fairfield, connecticut. good morning. caller: i am not too concerned
with this. the rules are not changing that much. there is a lot of fear mongering andscared cap going on -- scare tactics going on. but in reality, the internet is pretty much the same. host: that is a point that larry downes makes in his wrapup of this legislation. his column in forbes magazine. -- just to be clear, the net impact of your privacy of this action by congress assuming the president approves the resolution will be absolutely zero. the only result will be to leave in place for -- just to be clea, the net impact of your privacy of this action by congress better or worse the data collection and use policies that already exist. in part, that is because the proposed rules never took effect. you want to read his column, he is a contributor for forbes. several republican members of congress tweeting out that story
this week in the wake of some of the reaction that this move has garnered. forla is up next in washington, maryland. a democrat. good morning. bettercaller: i think it is ridiculous. consumer ever get a choice in any of these matters? i am not so much scared, as i am angry. because i feel like the corporations get more of us say saythere -- get more of a out there than we do. i think it is ridiculous. and i thinkand i think with thef cyber security issues, they need to take care of some of these issues we already have dealing with cyber security, the, and all of these types of things before they sell our information to the highest bidder.
and i think we should get a choice in the matter. from let us go to kathy, portal, mississippi. a republican. caller: i really do not feel like i want my information sold ever. i would rather have a choice or a decision to make on it. but, no, i do not want my information sold everywhere. of course, any more, you do not know what israel or what is not but if something is going to be sold, no, i do not want my soul. host: you have an expectation of privacy when you go online regarding your personal information? caller: no. not even now. are so manye hackers and things going on and people trying to take your identity. the last thing i want is for it to be given to more people. host: do think there is a here torole to play
ensure minimum privacy standards? caller: i would hope that we could find more privacy. it has gotten to the point where you are almost afraid to put your stuff out there. host: let us go to quincy, massachusetts. our caller is an independent. caller: hello and thank you for taking the call. point wanted to make a that i feel like it has not been brought up that much about the privacy rules. in congress and the house are worried about people being unmasked in incidental collection of foreign targets. but at the same time, you are literally selling our privacy. like, it is ridiculous. that is a joke. and also, i think that republicans have more they should be focused on right now. the just failed health care.
this is political suicide. and i do not understand -- i just laugh. if i do not laugh, i will cry. it is absurd what is happening in our government right now. one more thing i would like to say. hopefully, donald trump will be that he will not sign the bill because all of those republicans screwed him and made him look silly regarding the health care bill. out of spite, i hope you will not sign it. that is the only thing i have dope for. -- that i have to hope for. host: the white house issued a president trump's advisers are recommending that he would sign the bill. the energy and commerce committee chairman greg walden
was on the floor of the house during this debate. a republican. he was trying to explain the republican position and why he felt these rules needed to be pulled back. rules thatut, the the fcc applied to isps archaeological. the regulations would require companies to apply the same privacy protections to consumer data regardless of its importance or sensitivity. to treat thesense local weather update in your personal financial information in the same way. rulesly separate set of applies to providers from edge services. corporations,ch one of which controls up to 65% of your searches on the internet, they do not live by the same set of privacy rules as your small town i -- small town isp. america needs is one
standard across the internet ecosystem. the impact of these rigid regulations has the potential to stifle one of the most innovative sectors of our nation's economy. and it is consumers that will suffer. these rules that congress will repeal will only lead to higher cost and fewer service operator -- offerings. it is particularly burdensome for small businesses. the harms are certain. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. once these rules are reversed, they can turn back to work with the ftc. we want to hear from you. we are asking this morning for the first hour, are you concerned about changes to internet privacy rules. otis is in south carolina.
good morning. you.r: good morning to i was like to say that i do not think things are changing because we already got they are selling our information already and all they are doing now is making it legal so we do not have any say over. i tried to google the other day my internet provider to put myself on the -- the kind of like no call list that you have on your telephone. and i could not get anything to happen. now, i am going somewhere where i bought my phone at and i will get them to help me sign up on that list. i do not want my information sold. i tried to listen to a music station here not too long ago and you have to do this disclaimer thing and an approval thing.
and on it, they wanted all of my information. now, why would they want to have my pictures, my private emails -- all of that stuff is only i just want to listen to music? doy do not listen -- they not need that stuff from me. they do not need my pictures are my private information. all they need to know is that i want to listen to their station. host: are you on facebook or twitter or a social media platform? iller: i am on facebook and kind of wish i had not done that. host: are you concerned about facebook using your information to target you for advertising? they havell, i think already to tell you the truth because of all of the pop-ups i get all day long now. i am going to tell you this about our president. i have gotten nothing but pop-ups about his books were
people that are in the financial wanting to show me how to make money with these "get rich quick " schemes. undoubtedly, they already have information on the because i do look at some of the pop-ups. but i am not going to do that anymore. anytime i see a pop up on my phone, i delete it without checking out to see who it is from. i am fed up with it. i do not want everyone selling my information. host: is there a difference between facebook using your information to target you with ads versus an internet service provider? should they be under the same rules? caller: yes. the stuff i have already given photos, thatlike is another reason why i want to get off of facebook. i realize now that everything i say on facebook and my pictures
are being used. in fact, there are people on facebook now that are going and looking at my information and then they are setting up a dummy site with my name and pictures and they are trying to get me to check into this thing -- i have gotten several from friends of mine that they saw my name on a two hundredhad won $50,000 off of a facebook promotional program. and they wanted to know if i wanted to download the information off of their site. i told them no because if it sounds too good, it cannot be true. host: thank you for the call. illinois. and as a democrat. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am with otis on this.
my question is george. i have heard that i can opt out of this with my internet service provider. and i have looked around and like him, it has taken time. i would like to know if you are going to have someone on with a short time for people that are feeling victimized to opt out and then i don't have to think about this anymore. and i know there are other things out there with my information but this is a layer that i would like to have some control over. and take a little time with. i have not been victimized, i don't feel, by any of the people that have my information. to opt out of this and if you could help by asking one of your guests -- -- verge.com did
some reporting on this resolution moving through congress this week. some of the questions and answers they did in their coverage. and one of the questions was "can i opt out." they say internet providers to offer the opportunity to opt out of their targeted advertising. it is not clear though they say that opting out will prevent isps from putting your data to use. you are opting out of seeing ads that not providing data. they can still keep your information. and with carriers like verizon ,nd comcast buying up carriers they will likely use that information to make a profit. that is some of the information i can give you right now based on some of the reporting out there this week. caller: a site please? host: the verge.com. florida, on the line for
republicans. caller: good morning. i just called in to say no one should have any expectations of any kind of privacy on the internet. i am 74 years old. yahoo!oing a search on which i use a lot. jobs that weret available to people these days. i am not going to work. and i was put on a list. and i was inundated with schools, job applications. it took weeks to get rid of them. i even got telephone calls. it took weeks to get rid of all of this stuff. if you have any expectations of privacy now, you are acting foolishly. in daytona beach, florida. on the line for democrats. caller: i know i am going to
sound like a dinosaur but i do not own a computer. i refused. i want to keep my brain intact. we have no more control. i want to remind people -- 15 years ago, michael powell, the son of colin powell. he was on the board of the federal communications commission. he was a member. and they were pushing him as specially to loosen up the regulations so the big media, the conglomerates could gobble up the small newspapers and media. we fought back and c-span was great. we called the fcc. able call them by the millions and we stop it in its tracks. guess where michael powell is he is the ceoark and president of the entire ncta television cable communications good he is the most powerful man in this country and we have given up our freedom.
and i think we should be very, very worried. host: a few tweets on this from folks. fish and sam says it is time to release the search warrant -- the search results from congress. can we buy our congress people's information? jan writes in -- privacy question mark what you had to hide? one word tweet -- the not as yet enacted regulations overlap significantly the existing regulations. that was the same point that senator steve baines bade on his twitter page from montana. privacythat obama's
rules were a sham. some other tweets from other members of congress. jeff duncan. with one ofcussion his followers on their asking about this legislation. he said it is an important issue to be addressed by congress. it is a vote to undo an undemocratic power grab. one more tweet from a republican that voted against the legislation. walter jones from north carolina. he wrote on twitter -- last night, i voted against allowing isps to share customer's information without their consent. we want to hear your thoughts this morning. we have about a half hour left to talk about it. are you concerned about the changes in the internet privacy rules?
sam is in france become, tennessee. an independent. 1980's, companies were trying to sell things. if you do not want to go on the internet, do not put your information out there. host: should the government be involved in setting some minimum privacy standards? is that something that is not their role? caller: it isn't going to make a difference.
if you do not want your information on the internet, do not give them your social security number or your credit card number. user beware process? caller:heould make some rules but it is not anything new. used to use snail mail. host: when you should there be some rules. what would be some of the a sick rules that should be in place? should beat no one able to get your social security number, your driver license number. any of your financial information. but a lot of that is already out there. susan waiting in sarasota, florida. a democrat. caller: i am very appalled by
this. i watched the whole thing and i that,end, if you play it or if listeners can see it beginning,, from the i think it started -- you showed it on c-span starting tuesday or wednesday of last week. was: the senate discussion wednesday. the house debate and vote was this past tuesday. caller: ok. whatever day i got it wrong but is started off with bill nelson giving a nice, fairly brief description of the whole thing and spelled it out. and then ed markey, the senator from massachusetts, gave a longer, more specific way and explained it better.
this.am in shock over i am telling everyone i know. about this. how dangerous it could be. are on verizon, at&t, comcast, on and on -- you already gave up your right to privacy to them. google. it is in the fine print. your privacy is gone already. this cra they call it -- there is not even a number. i don't know why. it allows the isp, the big daddies, the big barrens of the broadband to sell everything. cra they callgoogle can only sell what ty have on google. -- itt is the way they
had been before this thing is passed. and so forth. comcast can only sell what they have. that was the agreement you made when you took on but this new thing allows, it is the wild west oliver. anything can sell anything about you to anybody. there is no protection at all. host: to review some of the rules in place right now, the sec rule repealed elder the congressional review it, that is the cra you brought up earlier, the rules have not gone into affect yet. privacy protection regulations that the sec came up with last october had not gone into effect, but republicans used the congressional review act to repeal these rules before they went into affect.
talk about wanting what the bill number was. if you want to look at up it is -- sjred4 it is a joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under chapter eight relating-- title five to protecting the privacy of customers a broadband another telecommunications services. is in illinois. republican. butch, good morning. caller: good morning. is -- ion i was calling don't own a computer. -- as fare a regular as this information thing. what i was concerned about when i talk to the guy earlier, i and $10 to twice,
st. jude's. now i am getting phone calls and i am getting all these letters from people wanting donations. know, it like him you don't, i don't, i don't think it is right for them to get my information out to people, you tow, just because i want make donations. i cannot donate to everyone and their brother. i don't know. that is all i have to say. thank you for your time. host: one of our earlier colors asked -- one of our earlier colors asked how their constituents would react if they asked them about this legislation. congressman mike doyle, democrat leading the debate on tuesday when this legislation came before the house me that exact same point. here is what he had to say. [video clip] member ofenge every this body at your next town hall meeting to have a show of hands
about how many people think it is a good idea to allow your internet service provider to sell their personal information without their permission? and then after you get that show of hands, asked them how many of them would vote for you if you support allowing corporations to do that? swampesolution is of the and for the small, and no one else. the rules of this resolution would overturn rules that are simple and may common sense. they don't require only three things -- one, internet service providers should ask permission before selling your private internet browsing history. number two, once they have your information, internet service providers should take reasonable measures to protect it. finally, if information gets stolen, the company should quickly let you know. that's it. that's all that is being asked
of them. these modest rules don't stop internet service providers using data for advertising and profiling, or whatever else, so long as they asked first. s not to dive into the personal lives of americans unless that is what those americans want. they just need to ask first. this is particularly true because broadband providers seen literally everything you do online. every website you visit. every app. every device. every time. by analyzing your internet usage and browsing history, these companies will know more about you the members of your own family. more than you tell your doctor. more than you know about yourself. and without these rules, these companies don't have to ask before selling all of that information, and they don't have to take reasonable measures to protect that information when
they collect it. host: if you want to watch the entire floor debate that happened in the house on tuesday, you can go back and see .hat it www.c-span.org we're asking our viewers, are you concerned about changes for internet privacy rules? 25 minutes left to talk about it. line four democrats, republicans, and independents are on your screen. ofother news in washington note, texas democrat -- plans to test the strength of his party's newfound populism and a long shot 2018 senate campaign against republican senator ted cruz. the wall street journal notes a three term congressman from el paso and became the first major democrat to announce a challenge to a gop senator facing reelection in 2018. it is the latest sign that
democrats feel emboldened under gop president donald trump. for more stories from the washington journal -- other stories from washington journal is the upcoming committee vote for neil gorsuch. the senate to vote in the judiciary committee is having their vote on monday. this is the headline -- wider war waged in neil gorsuch fight is the headline. the showdown is likely to be the closest in 1991 when clarence thompson was confirmed 52-48. an obituary on the back page of the new york times, william t coleman junior died. the story in obituary noting that he was a champion of the cause of civil rights in several milestone cases before the supreme court. friday in alexandria,
virginia at 96. he was involved in three major civil rights cases before the supreme court. mr. coleman recruited by thurgood marshall was an author of -- that outlawed segregation in 1954. schools 10 years later, he argued the case that led to supreme court decision of racially mixed couples. 1982, he argued that segregated private school should be barred from receiving federal tax exemptions. more of your calls on this question we are asking -- are you concerned about changing to internet privacy rules?
eric in seattle, washington, life for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you. democrats give up every argument to the republicans. look at abortion. act is a republican policy where they invade our privacy. all of these laws are designed to protect them. you have no protection from the local police tapping your phone, search warrants. but they are worried about mike flynn and people on the internet. they are not working about hackers of the voting system. trump stole the election with peter fields and these electronic and tech industry people. they hacked the voting system and they changed the voting results after the votes were in. host: what evidence have you seen to back up that claim? am ar: listen, i
self-taught computer expert. i know that a voting machine can be hacked. the results can be changed once the results are in. they probed into the databases in each state. look at the states that trump won compared host: the what evidence have you seen a bad? -- what evidence have you seen t? that questio caller: jump to have 200,000 votes in each district. this is why they are breaking the internet system because all of this information is out there and it can be used and it can be hacked into. around voting time, you will get different types of votes from republicans. they got my name out of the database in the state of georgia. host: all right. we will stay on the topic of the changes to internet privacy rules. roy is in texas.
an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, roy. caller: good morning. i think the biggest thing that is missed about the change to the rules is the primary reason moneyt someone can make front and back. they can make money by selling your information. they can make money by telling you they won't sell your information if you pay. this is just another way to enrich someone who already has the ability to make money. similarly to the gym and who whoed in earlier who said had done some searches and all of a sudden, he was getting phone calls.
well, he would not get phone calls unless he signed up for something when they asked for his information. people have always collected information, and it is up to you if you will allow that. if i going to a restaurant and cards, out one of their asking you how the service was and how the food was? they ask for your address and phone number, zip code. and then you start receiving things in the mail. this was years ago. um, the only thing is, it is all designed for someone to make money front and back. and that is just another way that the administration, current administration, is trying to let more money blowup -- blow up
instead of down. host: glenn is in connecticut. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. this thing, you got a business president. so it is business. think he would not sign it? everyone wants a business president. this is what you get. host: she did not seem seemistic -- she didn't optimistic in the club that we show that he would not sign it. caller: i know well, she did. she said it is going to him, and i hope he does not sign it. come on, you know. he is going to sign it. [laughter] host: they expect him to sign it. his advisers would recommend that he signed this into law. caller: yes, yes. biden said something about
what he thinks the president should do. he said, grow up. he should man up. and apologize to obama. that's all i got to say. host: one of those folks that follow on c-span. rites, heard anything about your browsing being sold? much ado here. similar points made in the editorial today of the wall street journal. editorial board of the wall street journal noted that it passed in the bipartisan sec come and never took effect. this belies the idea that comcast and other invented villains will have new freedom to auction off your data. president trump is expected to sign this bill, which are a past the senate. the result will be the status quo. your privacyns for
is nothing. he of nonstop headlines about how the republicans sold your privacy to internet providers. the misinformation campaign is an attempt to fully -- is an attempt to bully. that is the editorial board of the wall street journal. frank is in new jersey. an independent. frank, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling it a great time. for the most part, i think this whole law is a farce and a joke based on what has been happening, you know, prior the -- you know, the prior eight years. you have google and amazon, which are getting large amounts of money. -- large enough money to collect our data. amazon has mirror images of all our devices.
that was not under a republican administration. the deregulation of the internet and the internet going into an international board, that was not under the trump administration. that comes from a story from the washington post. and $83 billion advertising $83 billion advertising market is what he puts it at. a massives, it is amount of money, and a massive amount of data. somebody should be able to capitalize on it. i don't see anything wrong with that, as long as they protect us. but they have the data to begin with. it has been going on for the last 10 years. host: when you say as long as it protects? what are the minimum standards? caller: i don't think that when the government decides that
something is socially acceptable somebody te that is sitting in ae pee in the middle of america -- that is sitting in a tee pee deciding that something is not socially acceptable, then it should not be used amongst the hold 'em graphic. i don't think that is right. we talked more about protecting free speech online in terms of privacy -- versus privacy. caller: right. if you look at the evolution of data as a whole from the last 17 years, it is been an upward trend. it was an upper trend of collection. now we are sitting on all of this data. what should we do with it? from what i have noticed over the last few years, some bad things have been done what the data and some good things have been done with the data. host: what is an example of the
bad thing? caller: when you overthrow the government with that data. host: what is a good thing? caller: when you put 4000 pedophiles in jail. host: all right. frank in new jersey. paul in fairfax, virginia. line for democrats. good morning. caller: hey, thank you for taking my call! i just want to say, this is was small government looks like. government small enough to be bought by the highest bidder. thank you, gentlemen for showing yourselves for who you are. about theto comment irate gentleman from georgia. exit datace is in the in florida, wisconsin, and pennsylvania. people have in trying to explain uirky iny as something q
the early voting in it since he voting. meanwhile, that happens traditionally even in those behavior a kind of that has been largely embraced by democrats. if you look at the exit polls, those states, each went to hillary. you look at the official polls, they went to trump. and when we are looking in the middle of a congressional to russianon and hacking to enter there without election, yes, that has been on russianused efforts to interfere with our media. i am quite satisfied with it until we look into russian
efforts to interfere with our ballot process. here in virginia, we actually changed those voting machines out for the kind of machines that still vote electronically, but where we have a paper ballot backup. convinced that that is the only reason why our state did not go for trump. host: ok. let's go to john in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. are you concerned about the changes we have been talking about concerning internet privacy rules? caller: no, i am not. i am from pennsylvania. i heard congressman dole. saying that they should us for permission and that would be fair and reasonable. i go further. i am not concerned about isp's or anyone else monitor my telephone behavior, my cable tv
behavior, or my web browsing behavior. as long as a consumer, i get something out of it. that is my intellectual property. who browse the internet, use their phones, are on comcast and verizon are any of those things, that is there are pretty good -- that is their property. and if companies can use it and put a profile together and says this is what he goes -- this is where he goes hortense to buy, therefore i am going to sell his contact information so i can make a little bit of money. i come from the perspective of i .on't mind people making money i am saying, if you are going to use my property, i out of get something out of it. a discount on my bill. i need to get something like a payment because i am part of the browsing history you are using. the consumer should get paid for
some of this. it is their behavior. it is their shopping data that is being sold. just as they go ahead and use it, and i get nothing out of it, somebody else in marketing does, i think that is fundamentally un-american. host: are you ok with facebook using that information? faced of being a free service? do you think what you're are getting out of it is the use of that service if they use that information in advertising efforts? caller: great question. i think it is the same thing. i don't think it is a difference whether it is verizon, comcast, facebook, or google, or any of these folks. amazon, you name them, if they are going to profile and use your data and all they are saying is you give me permission to do this, that is fine. that is choice. but i think all of the entities it,just talked about facebook included come if they
are going to do it, it is your data and your history, you should somehow benefit you, not just say, go ahead and use it and i get nothing out of it. --t: dr. point, john peter got your point, john. peter is next. caller: i have a question and an observation. the reason these bills were enacted were to create, or improve the regulation of the internet. theftc -- rolled by it was controlled by the ftc. i guess my question observation is then why was the sec brought in to assist in that process? and -- host: and that was some of the concerns that republicans brought up that it was duplicitous and that would be to cops on the beat. caller: that is the question
people need to ask themselves. if you agree to distribute more regulation, that is fine. but then why couldn't that have not been done through the ftc? why does the sec need to be brought in? my opinion is that it kind of shows that this is more about censorship than it is about regulation and control. if they wanted to improved the regulation and control, they could have done it with a ftc. the sec is just an agency of censorship. host: peter, here is more of that to become the house floor on tuesday. this is a house majority, a republican, from louisiana. [video clip] an internetstered economy that is become the envy of the world. it must to the benefit of families and consumers across this country, but rather in the 's, the sec came in and
overreached and missed the mark with these rules injecting more regulation into the internet ecosystem. with all due respect, the internet was not broken and did not need the federal government to come in and try to fix it. the bottom line is, families expect and deserve to be protected online with a set of robust and uniform privacy protections. these will simply do not live up to that standard. rather than regulating based on the sensitivity of our data, these rules are applied unevenly based on what has the company you are, or what kind of technology you use. consumers should feel assured online that there is a cop on the beat with a track record of success. not an agency with a history of military overreach. aree midnight rules harmful, inconsistent, and should be repealed. and i urge my colleagues to adopt this important resolution. host: from the other side of that debate that happened on tuesday, frank pallone, democrat
from new jersey. [video clip] >> this debate is about whether americans have the right to privacy. we hear all kinds of arguments about jurisdiction, and limitation dates, and who knows what else, but these arguments just muddy the waters. republicans will say that the fcc's rules are confusing and people won't know what to do if they are asked first before broadband companies sell their sensitive information. but if that were the case, we would have heard from people who opposed the rules, but we have not heard any of those concerns. the facts speak for themselves consumers want more privacy protections, not less. 74% of americans say it is important that they be in control of their information and 91% of people say they have lost control over their own information. and there are real consequences to these feelings. of americans say to limit their online activity because they are worried about the privacy and security.
fcc, listen to the american people and adopt reasonable rules despite republican rules to the contrary. the rules were not hard to follow. they allow broadband companies to offer services based on the customer's data, and they can still in -- and they can still send reminders. as people first before selling sensitive information. that's it. fact, i would hope the sec would've gone even further, but the agency chose this more moderate approach. should be asking a simple question -- should the american people have the freedom to choose how the information should be used? the answer is clear. stem of the american people and i strongly opposes legislation. tot: again, if you want watch the entire debate that took place on tuesday, you can find it online at www.c-span.org . time for a few more calls on this topic. bill in arkansas. line for independents. good morning. caller: how are you doing today?
host: doing well. caller: i just want to say that it seems hypocritical other republicans to say they support the constitution. article four said you have the right to be secure. --re is a lot of cords that there are a lot of courts that say digital information is not covered. but you have the right to be .ecure even though digital stuff isn't covered, you -- it is still your information. of hownother example information, whether digital or otherwise, is manipulated to be used against the people by the corrupt, what has become -- jimmy carter called it an oligarchy of unlimited bribery. even in the stealing of
guest on, your former the show said, one of the most informative pieces i have seen in the cycle was the great investigative journalist greg. you can see his stuff online. "the bestiece called democracy that money can buy." he lays out the program of removing people from the voting rolls. donald trump said there were millions of people registered illegally. the fact is, they were just strategically removing independents and republicans by using the demographics of their family names. we have a real problem. [laughter] i just want to put that out there. it is hypocritical to say that your information is in yours,
right? it is your intellectual property, in fact. if you want to sell it, one of your guests said, you should make money on it yourself. if you want to sum my stuff, i was sure appreciate it if i was compensated for your selling off my information. host: all right, let's go to brett in minnesota. public and. good morning. -- brett. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. i think that unfortunately, for us as americans, it is getting to the point now where there are no privacy rules as far as the internet goes. period. host: do you think people should not have privacy when they go online? caller: basically, as americans, we have no privacy rules. we use the internet.
i mean, you order something on the internet, it goes out to everyone. host: i guess the question is should there be rules, or are you ok with that sort of online browser beware sort of mentality? yeah, with the internet browser mentality, a lot of people don't know that. a lot of the elderly don't know that. the order stuff online. they have no idea. host: all right. our last caller in the segment of the washington journal this morning. a busy show ahead. bill rausch is up next. he is a veteran and executive ,irector of a group got your 6 joining us about his recent meeting with trump. and then cato's institute david will talkvid bier about the obstacles of building a wall between the united states and mexico. meanwhile, clint-