handle -- we haven't even talked about the ftc. let me hear your take. >> first of all, we appreciate the work that has taken place between the auto industry and ntsa so far. it is a 15-year-long road to get to where we are. we think really good technology that is ready to go. once we get this spectrum issue closed, i think we can move forward with that. tsa is a good industry -- agency to partner with. we look to be missed framework and think that it is a good agency for us to partner with. as an industry, to create the same types of best practices and self guiding principles be of already done in terms of the privacy and security. >> at one level, and another level. >> a couple issues of principle, it is all about incentives. no one could be more interested in our own survival, especially as a small, young company than we are. putting the right incentives in place is key. i think that whatever we do, whatever agency it resides in, we need to foster innovation and sharing. but in the proper incentives in place to innovate, and to share. an instructive case of how this coul

and france to leading canadians to cabinet secretaries plus the entire ftc -- all the commissioners are coming and many other agencies and senators and congressmen as well. wouldn't don't want them regulating from inside the beltway. growth are seeing is the should be looking at. drones, robotics, health care, 3-d printing. automobiles have huge growth. there is so much going there as we shift toward driverless car. we want to be looking at these technologies and have a huge area of focus and say this is our future. this is a dynamic and exciting industry how can we as policymakers ensure that the united states stays at the lead. others are coming from other countries saying how can we capture that. the chinese have a five-year plan that focuses on innovation but france will have over 100 exhibitors and they have a huge delegation because they are focused on innovation. we have competition which is a good thing and good for our own government. >> let's talk about some of the technology. you mentioned your own business starting with the new requirement that consumers have to register

would be glad to continue these discussions. >> i would cite the ftc versus owens when the congressional committee compels production to does not prevent assertion in privilege. it is well documented you were hiding this may american people. was the client -- who is the client? mr. kadzik: we are trying to protect the american people. >> we represent the american people. mr. kadzik: so do we, but -- >> i'm not talking about broad public disclosure. mr. kadzik: we are to accommodate the information request. >> know you're not, we just want to read the document. no, and itsaying should scare every american. i believe in a recognize mr. wahlberg. >> this is a perfect example of how we have gone away, with all due respect you don't represent the american people. you do not represent the american people. we're the only ones elected to represent the american people. d'm sitting here thinking of ol with heroes rerun sergeant schultz saying i know nothing. i understand you people of them put in difficult situations are present in people that do have the answers. that you and a plac

legislation. 2015 should establish federal standards for connected cars, in consultation with the ftc, to develop privacy regulations for driver data. it provides a good framework for meaningful safeguards. there is also the house draft bill that would require car companies to develop modest privacy policies for the collection of driver information. the house draft falls short of providing robust privacy protection. it would not require manufacturers to actually develop or even implement privacy-protecting measures. instead, the company could only inform drivers about whether the company chooses to take various privacy-protecting measures. scrutiny forizes developing the policy. the draft would broadly criminalize vehicle hacking, including for research purposes. the senate bill comes much closer to safeguarding the interest than the house draft. oppose, we would i the house draft, which would be a step backwards for americans concerned about privacy and security. second, congress should hackingh fines for connected cars, but only when there is malicious intent. this will prevent research

cite the ftc versus owens corning fiber glass. when a committee requires documenttation. it is well documented you are hiding this from the american people. who is the client you are trying to protect? >> we are trying to protect the american people. >> and we represent the american people. >> and so do we. but providing this memorandum for broad public disclosure. >> i am not doing broad public disclosure. we should be able to see what you are doing. >> we are trying to accommodate the information request. >> no, you are not. we just want to read the documents. and you're saying no. and that should scare every american. i appreciate the committee's indulgence. i believe we now recognize mr. wallberg for five minutes. >> this is a perfect exament of how we've gone away. and with all due respect you do not represent the american people. you do not represent the american people. we are the only ones elected to represent the american people. now, remember that. i am sitting here today thinking i am hearing an old hogan heroes rerun with sergeant schultz saying, i know nothing. i also u

with the ftc, to develop privacy regulations for driver data. it provides a good framework for meaningful safeguards. there is also the house draft bill that would require car companies to develop modest privacy policies for the collection of driver information. the house draft falls short of providing robust privacy protection. it would not require manufacturers to actually develop or even implement privacy-protecting measures. instead, the company could only inform drivers about whether the company chooses to take various privacy-protecting measures. it also immunizes scrutiny for developing the policy. the draft would broadly criminalize vehicle hacking, including for research purposes. the senate bill comes much closer to safeguarding the interest than the house draft. in fact, we would oppose the house draft, which would be a step backwards for americans concerned about privacy and security. second, congress should establish fines for hacking connected cars, but only when there is malicious intent. this will permit research to discover vulnerabilities. third, congress shou

lines. if there is going to be a substantial shift of responsibility toward the fcc, which the ftc doesn't really have. presumably a lot less expertise in the area than the ftc. do people think are going to be the repercussions of that? answer first. to >> i am happy to. everything i have said in my colleagues have said, we think the common care exemption ought to be repealed. i stand by that. >> i think it would be incumbent upon both of those agencies to to make sure done we are using it consistently. the ftc has a 100 year track record. i think it is entirely possible to have different enforcers. ftc is enforcer and ftc has regulator. sharing authority and trying to use it consistently. it is incumbent upon us to making sure we are consistent. helping us understand these issues. we have been studying them in detail. it has led us to the conclusion that privacy design and security design are good technology neutral approaches. saying those are the right kinds of paradigms, regardless of what part of the government is articulating it. >> whatever the desirability, you don't think

authority under section 5 of the ftc act, with unfair actions in commerce. the commission has challenged recently the practices of a company which has been selling dietary supplements for which it was making exaggerated and unsubstantiated weight loss claims. and couple that with the practice of offering to pay customers for positive reviews and have the fine print in the contract restricting them from having negative comments, and they have actually been suing people for making negative comments, threatening people when they complain, or they file a complaint with the better business bureau. the commission basically challenged that practice of using these threats and gag clauses of being unfair within the meaning of section 5 of the ftc act. so, that means that the practice of using the provisions cause s consumers substantial entry they cannot reasonably avoid, and there is no countervailing benefit that outweighs that injury. which is a long way of saying that this basically is a practice that distorts the marketplace. it damages consumer welfare. and the emphasis of the ca